Court interprets "newly discovered evidence" rule and denies reference to Release

In what started out as a three-party unpaid rent case, the Court was forced to decide whether a release executed by two of the parties was binding on a third.  The trial judge refused to examine the language of the release and gave it broad interpretation to the disadvantage of the party who was not involved in its execution.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Court erred in its broad interpretation of the Release language, but then refused to allow reference to it, since it was not initially raised by the non-signer and was not "newly discovered evidence" since the party was aware of the other parties' settlement.