- 66 -
note was well covered by collateral. Hence, while we acknowledge
that the level of coverage was not as great as Mr. Thomson may
have assumed, we remain satisfied that good coverage could
appropriately be considered as a positive factor enhancing the
value of the subject note.
We next address the factor involving personal guaranties,
about which the parties express significant differences. Mr.
Cronkite indicated at trial that he was not aware of any personal
guaranties at the time he prepared his report, while Mr. Thomson
took guaranties into account in his valuation. The record
contains no guaranty agreement or document relating to either the
Marsh note or the $1 million note, and the notes themselves bear
no evidence of a guarantor. Instead, guaranties are referred to
in several items of correspondence which passed between Mr. Marsh
and either decedent or Michael. The first is an April 15, 1991,
letter from Mr. Marsh to decedent. This letter adverts to the
new $450,000 promissory note and concludes with the following
paragraph:
I am proceeding with the closing of the
$1,000,000.00 loan to James Goldstein that will be
adequately secured by a Note secured by Deed of Trust
on real property. I, of course, will have all the
necessary personal guarantees, etc. on same. If, for
any reason whatsoever, this loan does not close within
the next fifteen days, your funds will be returned to
you upon demand plus 10 3/4% interest from April 15,
1991. If the loan closes, Morton B. Harper, Trustee of
the Morton B. Harper Revocable Trust Dated December 18,
1990, will be assigned, as collateral, a 45% interest
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011