- 69 -
guaranty was actually of the $1 million note, the evidence is
ambiguous and fails to establish such a guaranty by a
preponderance.
Concerning a possible guaranty of the $1 million note by Mr.
Goldstein, we again find the record insufficient to meet
respondent’s burden. While the April 15, 1991, letter indicates
prospectively that Mr. Marsh intended to seek a guaranty from Mr.
Goldstein, the absence of any reference to a Goldstein guaranty
in the June 6, 1991, letter is conspicuous. The June 6, 1991,
letter specifically enumerates documents pertaining to the $1
million note, as well as a personal guaranty by Mr. Marsh. The
omission of any mention of a guaranty by Mr. Goldstein could
certainly imply that the anticipated assurance was not obtained.
The only other item which alludes to a Goldstein guaranty is the
February 10, 1995, letter written nearly 4 years later. Given
this record, we are not convinced that the latter document
sufficiently overcomes the inference which can be drawn from the
more contemporaneous letters. In summary then, we conclude that,
on the evidence before us, personal guaranties should not be
considered as a factor enhancing the value of the Marsh note.
As regards the factor directed toward the interest rate on
the note, Mr. Thomson found this element to be neutral. Mr.
Thomson compared the 9.13-percent conventional mortgage rate for
the week ended January 27, 1995, as reported in the Federal
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