- 26 -
nership obligations. Petitioners contend, however, that an
agreement in 1993 among Mr. McDaniel, the Bank, and Mr. Palermo
to release Mr. McDaniel from his guaranty "can be inferred from
the course of dealing between the bank and Palermo having knowl-
edge that McDaniels [sic] was no longer a partner." Petitioners
point to, inter alia, the following in an effort to support that
contention: The Bank did not notify Mr. McDaniel that the
partnership had not timely made the balloon payment that was due
on April 12, 1993, under the 1989 note; the Bank did not notify
Mr. McDaniel or Second Street that the 1989 note was in default
during 1993; the Bank materially changed the terms of the 1989
note and relinquished its right to receive the balloon payment;
the topic of Mr. McDaniel's liability with respect to the 1989
note did not arise in discussions during 1993 between Mr. Palermo
and personnel of the Bank; and the written internal reports of
the Bank that were prepared during 1993 show that the Bank
understood that Mr. McDaniel was discharged from his liability as
a guarantor of the Second Street loan.
On the record before us, we reject petitioners' position
that an agreement in 1993 among Mr. McDaniel, the Bank, and Mr.
Palermo to release Mr. McDaniel from his liability as a guarantor
of the 1989 note may be inferred within the meaning of section
620.735(2) from the course of dealing during that year between
Mr. Palermo and the Bank. The foregoing points on which pe-
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011