argues that the Addenda are not parol evidence, but rather, are part of the original Release and Settlement Agreement, and that it was therefore proper for the court to consider those documents. That argument however, is incorrect. These documents were not executed contemporaneously with the Release and Settlement Agreement and cannot be said to be part and parcel of that Agreement. More to the point, these documents did not serve to explain an ambiguity but instead created an ambiguity which would not otherwise exist in the Release and Settlement Agreement. Neither the Addenda nor the “memorandum of settlement” can be relied upon to “explain” an agreement which, by its terms, required no explanation. Wickenheiser v. Ramm Vending Promotion, Inc., 560 So.2d 350, 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>). The intent of the parties was to be
holding if the language of a deed or other written instrument is clear and unambiguous the intention of the parties is gathered from the instrument it is what the grant or said and not what he intended to say holding evidence that would contradict add to or subtract from or affect the construction of a valid complete and unambiguous written instrument is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule holding the parol evidence rule presumes finality with respect to the written terms of the agreement only and does not prevent consideration of parol evidence concerning the duration of contract holding that parol evidence was inadmissible to contradict the terms of a security agreement and promissory note holding parol evidence inadmissible to vary a written instrument which is complete unambiguous valid and unaffected by fraud duress mistake or illegality