Joyner v. Adams North Carolina Court of Appeals 1987 1) Facts a) Plaintiff leased property to Brown. The property was to be subdivided and the rent would increase over the term of the lease. b) In 1975, Brown had some financial difficulties so Defendant was substituted. c) The rent increase was suspended for a time to allow Defendant to subdivide the property. d) Defendant was to complete the subdivision during the suspension of the rate increase. e) If the subdivision was not completed, Defendant would be liable for the rent increases that would have occurred during the suspension. f) At the end of the suspension, all of the lots but one had buildings and separate lot leases. The remaining lot had been graded, had water and sewer lines, and all driveways and roads leading to the lot were built. g) The parties disagree as to whether Defendant met the subdivision requirement of completed development for suspending the lease. 2) History a) At trial court plaintiff won damages in amount of $93,695 b) Defendant appeals 3) Issue a) Was there a meeting of the minds i) There was no meeting of the minds in the contract. Each party attributed their own meaning to the same term. If one side knew that the other did not know the meaning or was confused, then that would violate the contract. b) Did the trial court err in ruling in favor of plaintiff? i) Yes, the rule of interpretation does not apply to the contract but an issue of construction. It is up to the lower court to decide if one party knew of the others parties meaning of the term in the contract 4) Judgment: Reversed and Remanded