2. In this case, the parties have agreed to bifurcate the issues and to submit cross motions for summary judgment in order to obtain a conclusive resolution by the Court as to whether Defendant was contractually required to report income derived from his performance of medical services in Beckley as part of his “Cash Collections” under the Recruitment Agreement.
3. A valid written instrument which expresses the intent of the parties in plain and unambiguous language is not subject to judicial construction or interpretation but will be applied and enforced according to such intent. See, e.g., Benson v. AJR, Inc., 226 W.Va. 165, 175-76, 698 S.E.2d 638, 648-49 (2010).
4. In construing a written instrument, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West …show more content…
Further, “[i]t is the safest and best mode of construction to give words, free from ambiguity, their plain and ordinary meaning.” Syl. Pt. 3, in part, Bennett v. Dove, 166 W.Va. 772, 277 S.E.2d 617 (1981).
6. In this regard, “[i]t is not the right or province of a court to alter, pervert or destroy the clear meaning and intent of the parties as expressed in unambiguous language in their written contract or to make a new or different contract for them.” Syl. Pt. 3, Cotiga Development Co. v. United Fuel Gas Co., 147 W. Va. 484, 128 S.E.2d 626 (1962); accord Syl. Pt. 1, Hatfield v. Health Management Associates of West Virginia, 223 W. Va. 259, 672 S.E.2d 395 (2008).
7. The Supreme Court has also stated that “[t]he mere fact that parties do not agree to the construction of a contract does not render it ambiguous. The question as to whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law to be determined by the court.” See Syl. Pt. 1, Berkeley County Public Service District v. Vitro Corp. of America, 152 W. Va. 252, 162 S.E.2d 189 (1968); accord Syl. Pt. 3, Energy Dev. Corp. v. Moss, 214 W. Va. 577, 591 S.E.2d 135 (2003).
8. The Recruitment Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant provides a clear and unambiguous definition for the term “Cash Collections” as
3. A valid written instrument which expresses the intent of the parties in plain and unambiguous language is not subject to judicial construction or interpretation but will be applied and enforced according to such intent. See, e.g., Benson v. AJR, Inc., 226 W.Va. 165, 175-76, 698 S.E.2d 638, 648-49 (2010).
4. In construing a written instrument, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West …show more content…
Further, “[i]t is the safest and best mode of construction to give words, free from ambiguity, their plain and ordinary meaning.” Syl. Pt. 3, in part, Bennett v. Dove, 166 W.Va. 772, 277 S.E.2d 617 (1981).
6. In this regard, “[i]t is not the right or province of a court to alter, pervert or destroy the clear meaning and intent of the parties as expressed in unambiguous language in their written contract or to make a new or different contract for them.” Syl. Pt. 3, Cotiga Development Co. v. United Fuel Gas Co., 147 W. Va. 484, 128 S.E.2d 626 (1962); accord Syl. Pt. 1, Hatfield v. Health Management Associates of West Virginia, 223 W. Va. 259, 672 S.E.2d 395 (2008).
7. The Supreme Court has also stated that “[t]he mere fact that parties do not agree to the construction of a contract does not render it ambiguous. The question as to whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law to be determined by the court.” See Syl. Pt. 1, Berkeley County Public Service District v. Vitro Corp. of America, 152 W. Va. 252, 162 S.E.2d 189 (1968); accord Syl. Pt. 3, Energy Dev. Corp. v. Moss, 214 W. Va. 577, 591 S.E.2d 135 (2003).
8. The Recruitment Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant provides a clear and unambiguous definition for the term “Cash Collections” as