Marjorie Pierce loaned $50,000 to Mr. and Mrs. Cronebaugh (defendants) for the purchase of a home. The loan was secured by a mortgage and a promissory note drafted by the Cronebaughs’ attorney. The note provided that the Cronebaughs would pay Pierce an amount to be determined at the time one of the contingencies in paragraphs one, two, or three of the note occurred. Specifically, paragraph one identified the note as “a demand note, due on October 1, 2018.” Paragraphs two and three contained other conditions, such as the sale of the home or the death of the Cronebaughs. The Cronebaughs closed on the home. Thereafter, Richard Nagel (plaintiff), representing Pierce’s estate, brought suit against the Cronebaughs to demand payment on the note. The Cronebaughs argued that payment was not due under paragraph one until October 1, 2018. The trial court concluded that paragraph one unambiguously created an obligation to pay by October 1, 2018, unless one of the conditions in paragraph two or three occurred first. Because none of these conditions had occurred, the Cronebaughs were not obligated to pay upon Nagel’s sooner demand. Nagel appealed, contending that, under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 3-108(c), paragraph one established a demand payable at any time, even before the October 1, 2018 due date.