Interpretation of Contracts. Lisa and Darrell Miller married in 1983 and had two children, Landon and Spencer. The Millers divorced in 2003 and entered into a “Joint Custody Implementation Plan” (JCIP). Under the JCIP, Darrell agreed to “begin setting funds aside for the minor children to attend post-secondary education necessary to pay tuition, books, supplies, and room and board not to exceed four (4) years.”

After Landon’s eighteenth birthday, Darrell fi led a petition in a Louisiana state court to reduce the amount of the child support that he was paying to Lisa. In response, she asked the court to order Darrell to pay the boys’ college expenses but offered no evidence to support the request. Darrell contended that the JCIP was not clear on this point. Do the rules of contract interpretation, applied to the phrasing of the Millers’ JCIP, support Lisa’s request or Darrell’s contention? Explain. [Miller v. Miller, 1 So.2d 815 (La.App. 2009)]