by someone other than the person authorized to request a transfer or without the necessary number of endorsements. ¶ 18. Instead, she is arguing the Bank breached the provision of the CDs in which the Bank required the person requesting a transfer to “present the certificate” at the time of the request. She claims this provision obligated the Bank to require presentment in order to protect her as joint owner. She further claims she relied on this provision to her detriment, believing that, so long as she retained possession of the certificates, Ronnie could not exercise his right of withdrawal or transfer. ¶ 19. But we find neither the language of the provision requiring presentment nor the terms of the CDs as a whole support Tammy’s contention. See Epperson, 93 So.3d at 16 (¶ 17) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 20. Page two of the CDs begins with
holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law recognizing court must enforce unambiguous contract according to its terms holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties holding that when the contract language is unambiguous we take these words to represent the parties intent and the plain meaning of this language governs its interpretation holding that where the language of the contract is unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning the court may decide the meaning of the contract as a matter of law