Robert S. McDaniel, Jr. and W. Jane McDaniel - Page 30




                                       - 30 -                                         

          longer responsible.  See id. at 243-244.  After examining section           
          620.735(2), the Court of Appeals stated:                                    
               No express or inferred agreement existed here.  There                  
               was no express agreement between Weiss and the Hillman                 
               Group partners relieving Weiss of liability; Flagship                  
               did not expressly release Weiss from his personal                      
               guarantee; and nothing in the course of dealings be-                   
               tween the Hillman Group and Flagship permits the in-                   
               ference that Flagship released Weiss from his personal                 
               guarantee.                                                             
                    Because the Tax Court did not indicate what course                
               of dealings showed that Weiss was relieved of liabil-                  
               ity, we suppose that Flagship's extension of a $200,000                
               line of credit to the Hillman Group somehow influenced                 
               the Tax Court.  But this credit extension is in no way                 
               inconsistent with the fact that Flagship still consid-                 
               ered Weiss personally liable on his guarantee of the                   
               loan participation.  Without a clear inconsistency                     
               between the written guarantee and later conduct by                     
               Flagship, we see no reason to infer that Weiss had been                
               discharged from his obligation pursuant to the guaran-                 
               tee.  For example, we might decide that Weiss was                      
               relieved from his liability by the course of dealings                  
               if, without expressly releasing Weiss, Flagship had                    
               substituted a new written guarantee from the Hillman                   
               Group or one of its members after Weiss' partnership                   
               interest was terminated.  Or, for another example, we                  
               might also have decided that Weiss was released if, in                 
               the course of dealings, Flagship had been forced to                    
               recover on their loan participation and sought recovery                
               only from the Hillman Group and not from Weiss.  But                   
               here nothing in the record shows that Flagship had                     
               released Weiss from his personal guarantee.  [Id. at                   
               245.]                                                                  
               Petitioners attempt to distinguish Weiss.  They contend that           
          "Weiss did not present a situation, such as the instant case,               
          where the loan became due and the payment was changed from a                
          balloon payment to payment of interest only."  As discussed                 
          above, we reject petitioners' position that the terms of the 1989           





Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011