- 21 -
find unconvincing the Guaderramas’ argument that repayment was
risky because Benavidez had his liquor operation shut down for
some period of time. It is unclear when Benavidez had his liquor
operation shut down. Guaderrama testified that Benavidez’ bar
operations were shut down for a period of time, but he could not
recall when and stated that it was for “maybe a month or two”.
Such a vague recollection does not indicate to us that Guaderrama
was overly concerned with the temporary shutdown. Furthermore,
it does not appear that Benavidez failed to make monthly payments
during any period of temporary shutdown, and the Guaderramas have
not offered any evidence to the contrary.
Finally, we note that the loan to Benavidez was secured by
the liquor license. The Guaderramas’ possession of such
collateral makes it difficult to argue that the loan was risky.
We therefore conclude that the obligation owed by Benavidez was
not speculative or risky, and the payments received by the
Guaderramas from Benavidez under the financing arrangement must
be allocated between principal and interest.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decisions will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Last modified: May 25, 2011