parol evidence rule in Arizona

2025See id. at 250, ¶ 15 (concluding that the parol evidence rule does not apply to a judgment). ¶12 Diefenbach and Palmer are dispositive.

2022See In re the Marriage of Zale, 193 Ariz. 246, 249, ¶ 10 (1999) (“[I]t is error to conclude that the parol evidence rule applies to judgments,” because “[a] judgment is not an agreement between or among the parties.”).

2022“The court must decide what evidence, other than the writing, is admissible in the interpretation process, bearing in mind that the parol evidence rule prohibits extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict, but not to interpret, the agreement.” Taylor, 175 Ariz. at 152 . ¶9 Wife argues the superior court erred in interpreting the Agreement and concluding she was entitled to 25% of the value of the California home rather than 50%.

2021“The court must decide what evidence, other than the writing, is admissible in the interpretation process, bearing in mind that the parol evidence rule prohibits extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict, but not to interpret, the agreement.” Id. at 152 .

2004Corp., 129 Ariz. 385 , 631 P.2d 540 (App.1980) (addressing whether the parol evidence rule bars evidence of fraud in the inducement); Universal Inv.

2004Corp., 129 Ariz. 385 , 631 P.2d 540 (App.1980) (addressing whether the parol evidence rule bars evidence of fraud in the inducement); Universal Inv.

2023Decision of the Court agreement “if the resulting ‘interpretation’ unavoidably changes the meaning of the writing.” Id. at 329, ¶ 34 . ¶25 Courts have long applied the parol evidence rule to bar the use of extrinsic evidence to show that real property was conveyed subject to use or ownership restrictions that do not appear in the conveyance instrument.

2018The same sentence contains Josiah's specific disclaimer of any life estate in favor of Dan Roe. ¶ 22 It is true that Arizona has adopted a permissive approach to the parol evidence rule, Long v. City of Glendale , 208 Ariz. 319 , ¶ 27, 93 P.3d 519 (App. 2004), allowing, as noted, extrinsic evidence to aid in contract interpretation.

1968Merrick cites Carrillo v. Taylor, 81 Ariz. 14 , 299 P.2d 188 (1956), wherein the Arizona Supreme Court stated ( 81 Ariz. at 26 , 299 P.2d at 196 ): “It is fundamental that the parol evidence rule is a doctrine of substantive law and not merely an exclusionary rule of evidence.” 'The same rule was set forth in McNeil v. Attaway, 87 Ariz. 103 , 348 P.2d 301 (1959) [supplemental opinion on rehearing 20 January I960].

1968Merrick cites Carrillo v. Taylor, 81 Ariz. 14 , 299 P.2d 188 (1956), wherein the Arizona Supreme Court stated ( 81 Ariz. at 26 , 299 P.2d at 196 ): “It is fundamental that the parol evidence rule is a doctrine of substantive law and not merely an exclusionary rule of evidence.” 'The same rule was set forth in McNeil v. Attaway, 87 Ariz. 103 , 348 P.2d 301 (1959) [supplemental opinion on rehearing 20 January I960].

2022Corp. v. Sibole, 25 Ariz. App. 185, 187-88 (1975) (finding that although counsel made two references that indicated his awareness of the applicability of the parol evidence rule, he made no objection to the admission of such evidence, so the court was entitled to consider parol evidence in reaching its decision). ¶11 Regardless, Husband’s arguments are without merit.

2019Corp. v. Sibole, 25 Ariz. App. 185, 186-87 (1975) (concluding that the parol evidence rule may be waived by a failure to object to allegedly improper testimony such that the trial court is entitled to consider the parol evidence in reaching its decision).

1987The parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive contract law, Rental Develoyment Corp. of America v. Rubenstein Const. Co., 96 Ariz. 133 , 393 P.2d 144 (1964); see also Fiorentino v. Travelers Insurance Company, 448 F.Supp. 1364 (E.D.Pa.1978), and a claim of negligent misrepresentation sounds in tort.

1987The parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive contract law, Rental Develoyment Corp. of America v. Rubenstein Const. Co., 96 Ariz. 133 , 393 P.2d 144 (1964); see also Fiorentino v. Travelers Insurance Company, 448 F.Supp. 1364 (E.D.Pa.1978), and a claim of negligent misrepresentation sounds in tort.

1966In support of this position, appellant cites an Arizona Supreme Court case which states: “In view of this court’s prior decisions applying the parol evidence rule, it is apparent that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the conversations complained of, antecedent and subsequent to the execution of the lease between the parties.” Lambros Metals v. Tannous, 71 Ariz. 53, 57 , 223 P.2d 570, 572 (1950).

1966In support of this position, appellant cites an Arizona Supreme Court case which states: “In view of this court’s prior decisions applying the parol evidence rule, it is apparent that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the conversations complained of, antecedent and subsequent to the execution of the lease between the parties.” Lambros Metals v. Tannous, 71 Ariz. 53, 57 , 223 P.2d 570, 572 (1950).

2024Roe, 246 Ariz. at 28, ¶ 22 .

2022Id. at 152; see also Roe v. Austin, 246 Ariz. 21, 26, ¶ 17 (App. 2018); ELM Ret.

2019Terry v. Gaslight Square Assocs., 182 Ariz. 365, 368 (App. 1994).

2016See Terry v. Gaslight Square Assocs., 182 Ariz. 365, 368 (App. 1994). 1 Absent material revisions from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s current version. 2 Wife urges us to review only for fundamental error, arguing Husband failed to properly preserve the issue in the trial court.

1980Shyvers v. Mitchell, 133 Cal.App.2d 569 , 284 P.2d 826, 830 (1955). 3 Ariz.App. at 359-60, 414 P.2d at 443 — 44.

1980Shyvers v. Mitchell, 133 Cal.App.2d 569 , 284 P.2d 826, 830 (1955). 3 Ariz.App. at 359-60, 414 P.2d at 443 — 44.

1971The rule has been set forth by the Arizona Supreme Court in Richards Development Company v. Sligh, 89 Ariz. 100 , 358 P.2d 329 (1961) : “The parol evidence rule, * * * excludes the use of parol evidence to add to, subtract from, vary or contradict the terms of a complete and unambiguous written contract.

1971The rule has been set forth by the Arizona Supreme Court in Richards Development Company v. Sligh, 89 Ariz. 100 , 358 P.2d 329 (1961) : “The parol evidence rule, * * * excludes the use of parol evidence to add to, subtract from, vary or contradict the terms of a complete and unambiguous written contract.

1999Shaughnessy v. Shaughnessy, 164 Ariz. 449, 452 , 793 P.2d 1116, 1119 (App.1990) (not abuse of discretion to exclude testimony from spouse’s former attorney to interpret decree provision because to do so would “violate the parol evidence rule”); Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 Ariz. App. 447 , 539 P.2d 921 (1975) (admission of testimony from counsel violated parol evidence rule); In re Estate and Guardianship of Purton, 7 Ariz.App. 526 , 441 P.2d 561 (1968) (parol evidence applicable to judg *250 merits but judgment at issue not ambiguous); City of Glendale v. Skok, 6 Ariz.App. 342, 345 , 432 P.2d 597,

1999Shaughnessy v. Shaughnessy, 164 Ariz. 449, 452 , 793 P.2d 1116, 1119 (App.1990) (not abuse of discretion to exclude testimony from spouse’s former attorney to interpret decree provision because to do so would “violate the parol evidence rule”); Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 Ariz. App. 447 , 539 P.2d 921 (1975) (admission of testimony from counsel violated parol evidence rule); In re Estate and Guardianship of Purton, 7 Ariz.App. 526 , 441 P.2d 561 (1968) (parol evidence applicable to judg *250 merits but judgment at issue not ambiguous); City of Glendale v. Skok, 6 Ariz.App. 342, 345 , 432 P.2d 597,

1976In an early Arizona case, Cooper v. Holder, 24 Ariz. 415 , 210 P. 690 (1922), we find the court treating the parol evidence rule as an exclusionary rule and holding that failure to object constituted a waiver of the benefits of the rule.

1976In an early Arizona case, Cooper v. Holder, 24 Ariz. 415 , 210 P. 690 (1922), we find the court treating the parol evidence rule as an exclusionary rule and holding that failure to object constituted a waiver of the benefits of the rule.

2025Park, 154 Ariz. 495, 498 (App. 1987).

2021Formento, however, holds that “the parol evidence rule does not bar evidence of fraud in the inducement of a contract” even when the contract has an integration clause. 154 Ariz. at 499 (citing cases).

2024Co., 10 Ariz. App. 263, 266 (1969) (“[I]n reaching its decision as to the granting of a motion for summary judgment, the court should exclude from its consideration extrinsic evidence which would violate the parol evidence rule.”).

1975Briskman v. Del Monte Mortgage Company, 10 Ariz.App. 263 , 458 P.2d 130 (1969).

2023P’ship, 228 Ariz. 61, 67-68, ¶¶ 20-21 (App. 2011) (rejecting affidavits offered to show that easement granted for “pedestrian and passenger” vehicles was intended for emergency vehicles only because “the contract language [was] not reasonably susceptible to the interpretation” set forth in the affidavits) (cleaned up); Valento v. Valento, 225 Ariz. 477, 484, ¶¶ 21-22 (App. 2010) (holding that, where the deed’s language was “unambiguous in that [the grantors] conveyed the property interest to [their son] and [his wife] jointly,” the parol evidence rule prohibited testimony that the grantors int

2016Id. (citing Taylor v. State Farm Mut.

2021Id.; see also Ness v. Greater Ariz. Realty, Inc., 117 Ariz. 357, 362 (App. 1977) (stating the parol evidence rule excludes the use of extrinsic evidence “to add to, subtract from, vary or contradict the terms of a complete and unambiguous written contract.”) ¶19 Arguing the superior court misapplied the parol evidence rule, Borowsky cites Formento v. Encanto Bus.

2021Id.; see also Ness v. Greater Ariz. Realty, Inc., 117 Ariz. 357, 362 (App. 1977) (stating the parol evidence rule excludes the use of extrinsic evidence “to add to, subtract from, vary or contradict the terms of a complete and unambiguous written contract.”) ¶19 Arguing the superior court misapplied the parol evidence rule, Borowsky cites Formento v. Encanto Bus.

2018See Taylor, 175 Ariz. at 152-53 ; Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State, 114 Ariz. 480, 482 (1977) (holding that the parol evidence rule “prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to add to, subtract from, vary or contradict the terms of a complete and unambiguous written agreement” (citing Richards Dev.

1980Appellees argue that evidence of the alleged oral representation made prior to execution of the option agreement would be barred by the parol evidence rule, citing Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State, 114 Ariz. 480 , 562 P.2d 360 (1977); Sun Lodge, Inc. v. Ramada Development Co., 124 Ariz. 540 , 606 P.2d 30 (App. 1979); 7-G Ranching Co. v. Stites, 4 Ariz.App. 228 , 419 P.2d 358 (1966); and Apolito v. Johnson, 3 Ariz.App. 358 , 414 P.2d 442 (1966).

1999Shaughnessy v. Shaughnessy, 164 Ariz. 449, 452 , 793 P.2d 1116, 1119 (App.1990) (not abuse of discretion to exclude testimony from spouse’s former attorney to interpret decree provision because to do so would “violate the parol evidence rule”); Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 Ariz. App. 447 , 539 P.2d 921 (1975) (admission of testimony from counsel violated parol evidence rule); In re Estate and Guardianship of Purton, 7 Ariz.App. 526 , 441 P.2d 561 (1968) (parol evidence applicable to judg *250 merits but judgment at issue not ambiguous); City of Glendale v. Skok, 6 Ariz.App. 342, 345 , 432 P.2d 597,

1999Shaughnessy v. Shaughnessy, 164 Ariz. 449, 452 , 793 P.2d 1116, 1119 (App.1990) (not abuse of discretion to exclude testimony from spouse’s former attorney to interpret decree provision because to do so would “violate the parol evidence rule”); Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 Ariz. App. 447 , 539 P.2d 921 (1975) (admission of testimony from counsel violated parol evidence rule); In re Estate and Guardianship of Purton, 7 Ariz.App. 526 , 441 P.2d 561 (1968) (parol evidence applicable to judg *250 merits but judgment at issue not ambiguous); City of Glendale v. Skok, 6 Ariz.App. 342, 345 , 432 P.2d 597,

1980The Court of Appeals in Jamison v. Southern States Life Insurance Co., 3 Ariz. App. 131 , 412 P.2d 306 (1966) set aside a summary judgment for the plaintiff who had sued to collect on a promissory note, holding that the parol evidence rule “does not preclude the showing that a written contract was entered into in reliance upon fraudulent representations”, citing Dowdle and the Restatement of Contracts § 238. 3 Ariz.App. at 134, 412 P.2d at 309 .

1980The Court of Appeals in Jamison v. Southern States Life Insurance Co., 3 Ariz. App. 131 , 412 P.2d 306 (1966) set aside a summary judgment for the plaintiff who had sued to collect on a promissory note, holding that the parol evidence rule “does not preclude the showing that a written contract was entered into in reliance upon fraudulent representations”, citing Dowdle and the Restatement of Contracts § 238. 3 Ariz.App. at 134, 412 P.2d at 309 .