- 28 -
NationsBank/Amresco does not establish, as petitioners assert,
that there was a clear inconsistency between Mr. McDaniel's
guaranty and later conduct by NationsBank/Amresco. Moreover,
petitioners concede that, unlike the other partners who withdrew
from Second Street during the mid-to-late 1980's and each of whom
received from the creditor bank of Second Street an express
release from his/her liability for the partnership obligations to
such bank, Mr. McDaniel did not obtain an express release by
NationsBank/Amresco from his guaranty of the Second Street loan.
Finally, contrary to petitioners' contention, the written inter-
nal reports of the Bank that were prepared during 1993 and 1994
were consistent with the written internal reports prepared during
1992. Those reports show that throughout 1993 Nations-
Bank/Amresco considered Mr. McDaniel to be a guarantor of the
1989 note. Indeed, as late as June 30, 1994, the Bank was
evaluating the assets of, inter alia, Mr. McDaniel as a guarantor
of the Second Street loan, and Mr. Martens testified that the
Bank affirmatively decided not to discharge him from that guar-
anty.
Significantly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, to which an appeal in this case normally would lie, has
considered whether, pursuant to section 620.735(2), a guarantor
of a loan was discharged from his guaranty. See Weiss v. Com-
missioner, 956 F.2d 242 (11th Cir. 1992), vacating and remanding
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