- 68 -
In assessing the import of this documentary evidence, we
must also be conscious of relevant provisions of State law. Cal.
Civ. Code sec. 2787 (West 1993) defines “guarantor” for purpose
of the statutes relating to rights and obligations which arise
out of a guaranty relationship:
The distinction between sureties and guarantors is
hereby abolished. The terms and their derivatives,
wherever used in this code or in any other statute or
law of this State now in force or hereafter enacted,
shall have the same meaning, hereinafter in this
section defined. A surety or guarantor is one who
promises to answer for the debt, default, or
miscarriage of another, or hypothecates property as
security therefor. * * *
Against the foregoing backdrop, we first consider the
existence of any guaranty by Mr. Marsh. Clearly, Mr. Marsh and
the Harpers were under the impression that Mr. Marsh had executed
a personal guaranty on May 1, 1991. However, to the extent that
the purported guaranty existed and was of the $450,000 note, we
conclude that it should be disregarded in the valuation process.
The $450,000 note on its face is an unrestricted personal
obligation of “Jack P. Marsh”. Accordingly, any personal
guaranty thereof would fail to conform to the definition of a
guaranty under California law, would be no more than a redundant
second promise to pay personally, and would not appreciably
enhance the value of the note. Furthermore, to the extent that
the context provided by certain of the above letters could
support an inference that Mr. Marsh’s alleged May 1, 1991,
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