Timothy J. and Joan M. Miller - Page 14

                                        - 14 -                                        
          outstanding balance on the Miller/Huntington Loan as of that                
          date.8                                                                      
               On January 19, 1994, the line of credit under the                      
          Miller/Huntington Loan was increased an additional $250,000 to              
          $1,500,000.  Petitioner executed a new promissory note in favor             
          of Huntington for $1,500,000, which covered this increase and               
          served as a substitute for the previously executed $1 million and           
          $250,000 promissory notes.  The line of credit under the                    
          MMS/Miller Loan was similarly increased, and MMS also executed a            
          new promissory note in favor of petitioner for $1,500,000 which             
          replaced the two prior outstanding promissory notes between the             
          two.  Parallel modifications were made to the limited guaranties            
          of the Rapp Group, so that the guaranties in the aggregate                  
          covered the entire $1,500,000 amount authorized under the                   
          Miller/Huntington Loan.  Huntington's internal report on the                
          increase of the Miller/Huntington Loan to $1,500,000 listed the             
          primary source of repayment as "Personal cash flow [of                      
          petitioner] and/or funds from Miller Medical Systems, Inc."                 
               Additional security was provided in connection with the                
          increase in the Miller/Huntington Loan to $1,500,000.  First,               
          petitioner's parents granted Huntington a $50,000 second mortgage           


               8 Huntington's records list the 1993 yearend balance as                
          $1,185,000, whereas the parties have stipulated that the figure             
          was $1,184,930.  The $70 discrepancy is not material, in our                
          view.                                                                       




Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011