Shaw

Is the following a complete, unambiguous, integrated agreement, needing no extrinsic evidentiary interpretation ?

The trial court held it was incomplete, ambiguous, non-integrated, and permitted introduction of extrinsic interpretive evidence. Defendant appeals from a judgment favoring plaintiff following the jury’s determination plaintiff’s legal services were reasonably worth $13,500, offset by $2,500 already paid by defendant.

We examine the bare memorandum without recitation of any further facts, as defendant would have us do. It appears to relate to fees for Mr. Ted Leff by William W. Shaw, undoubtedly a lawyer. In entirety it states: for a “Divorce,” there is a “Retainer” of “750.00” and “150.00 per day” for "Court Time, ’ ’ “plus costs. ’ ’

We are not told what the parties understood a divorce to include; legally defined it is a dissolution of the bonds of matrimony (McDonald v. McDonald, 6 Cal.2d 457, 461 [ 58 P.2d 163 , 104 A.L.R. 1290 ]; San Chez v. Superior Court, 153 Cal.App.2d 162, 164 [ 314 P.2d 135 ]). A man and woman are married; that marriage is dissolved. Is this all there is to a divorce ? Is this all the parties had in mind, in looking at the memorandum,…