- 15 -
Or, as the Court of Appeal of California has written, in
Sunniland Fruit, Inc. v. Verni, 284 Cal. Rptr. 824, 828 (Ct.
App. 1991) (grower's obligation to repay broker's advances not
conditional, notwithstanding provision that the advances would be
deducted from funds due the grower after sale of grower's fruit):
When the money claimed is an identifiable debt and
there is no evidence establishing that the party
advancing the monies assumed the risk inherent in the
venture, identification of a particular pool of money
as a source of payment does not limit or preclude
recovery from other sources when the pool fails to
materialize unless the agreement expressly so states.
* * *
Considering the note in its entirety, we find that the
clause referring to Mark Mann's earnings is too ambiguous to be
treated as an express limitation on his clearly stated and
unconditional promise to repay the advances in full. We
therefore disagree with respondent's assertion that Mark was only
required to repay from his future earnings from petitioner. On
the basis of the entire record, we find that petitioner and Mark
Mann expected Mark's earnings from petitioner would be both the
likely and a convenient source of repayment, but they did not
intend or agree that Mark was obligated to make repayments only
from that source. See Andrew v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. at 245;
Bowman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-259. We therefore
conclude that Mark Mann and petitioner intended Mark to be
unconditionally obligated--and that Mark was in fact so
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011