- 39 -
that Mr. Spencer's testimony is corroborated by the fact that he
and Mr. Boozer pledged additional assets, personally owned by
them, as security for the bank loan. Petitioners maintain that
the pledge of such additional assets goes beyond a mere guaranty
of a corporate debt and shows SCNB's intent to look primarily at
them for repayment.
The record in the instant case does not persuade us that
SCNB primarily looked to the individuals for repayment. It is
not surprising that a lender of a loan to a small, closely held,
corporation such as SPC-SC would seek the personal guaranty of
the corporation's shareholders. Harris v. United States, 902
F.2d 439, 445 (5th Cir. 1990). It is also not unusual that a
lender would require such shareholders to pledge collateral as
security for the guaranty. Moreover, Mr. Spencer testified that
SCNB "obviously was looking at the operating assets of the
company that were producing the revenue in order to provide the
proceeds or the funds to make the [bank loan] payments," which
testimony directly contradicts his contention that the bank
looked primarily to him and Mr. Boozer for repayment of the bank
loan.
Contrary to Mr. Spencer's testimony, the record contains
ample evidence that SCNB primarily looked to SPC-SC for repayment
of the loan. SCNB made the bank loan directly to SPC-SC, which
repaid the bank loan from its current corporate revenues; Mr.
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011