Timothy Martinez, owner of Koenig & Vits, Inc. (K& V), guaranteed K& V’s debt to Community Bank & Trust. The guaranty stated that the bank was not required to seek payment of the debt from any other source before enforcing the guaranty. K& V defaulted. Through a Wisconsin state court, the bank sought payment of $ 536,739.40, plus interest at the contract rate of 7.5 percent, from Martinez. Martinez argued that the bank could not enforce his guaranty while other funds were available to satisfy K& V’s debt. For example, the debt might be paid out of the proceeds of a sale of corporate assets. Is this an effective defense to a guaranty? Why or why not?
Answer to relevant Questions73- 75 Main Avenue, LLC, agreed to lease a portion of the commercial property at 73 Main Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut, to PP Door Enterprise, Inc. Nan Zhang, as manager of PP Door, signed the lease agreement. The lessor ...1. What type of property was at the center of the dispute in this case? How did that property become involved in the dispute? 2. On what ground did the plaintiffs argue that the bank should not have been granted a summary ...Are there any downsides to live chats with bankruptcy courts? If so, what are they?Like many students, Barbara Hann financed her education partially through loans. These loans included three federally insured Stafford Loans of $ 7,500 each ($ 22,500 in total). Hann believed that she repaid the loans, but ...WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT?Suppose that Henderson had fully disclosed the fact of his agency relationship and the identity of his principal. Would the result have been different? Why or why not? THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT ...
Post your question