In Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393, 26 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 368 (Tex. 1983) the supreme court considered conflicting provisions in a property settlement agreement. The conflict was whether a payment obligation was an individual liability of the husband or was limited to commissions to be received by the husband. Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 392-93. Some language in the agreement appeared to guarantee payment of a specific sum (paragraph 8), while other language indicated the obligation was merely an assignment of the right to receive commissions when paid (paragraph 5). Id. These provisions had to be considered together; however, giving effect to the guarantee language (paragraph 8) would render the assignment of commission language (paragraph 5) surplusage. Id., at 394. The court concluded paragraph 8 conflicted with paragraph 5 and "this conflict creates an ambiguity as to the intent of the parties as expressed in the written agreement and the decree." Id.