Question

FFP Operating Partners, L.P. (FFP Operating) operates a number of convenience stores and gas stations. FFP Operating executed 31 promissory notes in favor of Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Company (FMAC). In connection with the notes, FFP Marketing Company, Inc. (FFP Marketing), executed guaranties of payment in favor of FMAC for all 31 notes. Loan and security agreements were also executed in connection with all 31 transactions. The promissory notes incorporated by reference the loan, security, and guaranty agreements, which included waivers, consents, and acknowledgments. Long Lane Master Trust IV (LLMT) became a successor in interest to FMAC with respect to the promissory notes, guaranties, and associated loan documents.
FFP Operating failed to make payments on the notes to LLMT. LLMT gave notice to FFP Operating of the default, accelerated the obligations under the promissory notes, and demanded payment. The notes went unpaid. The outstanding principal of the notes was $ 13,212,199, with unpaid interest of $ 1,488,899. LLMT filed suit against FFP Operating and FFP Marketing. LLMT filed a motion for summary judgment on its claim of default under the 31 promissory notes and guaranties for the amount due. FFP Operating declared bankruptcy and was dismissed from this case. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of LLMT against FFP Marketing. FFP Marketing appealed.
Why does LLMT want the notes to be found to be negotiable instruments? Are the 31 promissory notes negotiable instruments that can be enforced against FFP Marketing? FFP Marketing Company, Inc. v. Long Lane Master Trust IV, 169 S. W. 3d 402, 2005 Tex. App. Lexis 5277 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)


$1.99
Sales3
Views190
Comments0
  • CreatedAugust 12, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question
5000