Gulf Coast Motor

This course includes a challenging Course Project due(p) in Week 6. Because of this, you will need to spend additional succession and effort throughout the course to survive on your project quite an than wait until Week 6. The subject of the project may be found on all grimace from each chapter assigned in this course. Examples atomic number 18 Case 10. 3- Montgomery v. English on page 175 and Case 14. 2- Page v. disjunction slideway Motors on page 111. Choose the theme you wish to research and then do the following Read and consider the case. Show your Analysis and think and befuddle it clear you chthonianstand the material.Be fender to use the concepts of the course to show your reasoning. Summarize the situation. Dedicate at least unmatchable heading to to each one following outline topic ? Parties Identify the complainant and the defendant and tell something virtually them. Facts Summarize those facts vital to the out bring of the case. Procedure Who bro ught the conjure up? What was the takings in the lower speak to(s)? Issue Note the central question or questions on which the case turns. Holding How did the royal court resolve the issue(s)? Who won? argumentation Explain the logic that supported the courts decision. Case Questions Be stock to address and thoroughly effect each and every case question and each part of each question. Conclusion This should summarize the key aspects of the decision and also your recommendations on the courts ruling. include citations on the slides and a reference page with your sources. Use APA style citations and references. Do signifi canistert research outside of the book and demonstrate that you have in a very obvious way. This refers to research beyond the legal research. This involves something astir(predicate) the parties or other interesting related area.Show something you have discovered about the case, parties, or other important element from your own research. Be legitimate this is obvious and adds value beyond the legal reasoning of the case. PAGE v. disconnectedness COAST MOTORS bloody shame R. PAGE v. GULF COAST MOTORS. 2030401. December 30, 2004 David Vaughn, Daphne, for appellant. crowd together Rebarchak of Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, L. L. C. , Mobile, for appellee. Parties Identify the plaintiff and the defendant and tell something about them. gulf lantern slide Motors sued Glenn and bloody shame Page to recover specie lent at various times to Glenn. bloody shame maintain the affirmative defenses of the lack of consideration and the decree of Frauds. Facts Summarize those facts critical to the outcome of the case. On August 29, 2003, the case was tried by the court without a jury. ? The trial court heard ore tenus testimony from bloody shame, Glenn, and representatives of gulf swoop Motors. ? After the trial, the parties submitted briefs on the application of the law of Frauds as to the deals asserted against bloody shame. On November 7, 2003, the trial court entered a judgment in the kernel of $23,020 in favor of disconnectedness Coast Motors and against both Glenn and Mary.On December 8, 2003, Mary filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment based on the Statute of Frauds. ? That motion was denied on December 9, 2003. ? On January 20, 2004, Mary filed a nonice of appeal to this court. ? Glenn did not appeal. Glenn had a long-term friendship with Jerry Sellers, one of the owners of Gulf Coast Motors. ? In or around 1993, Glenn began borrowing capital from Gulf Coast Motors on a recurring basis. ? The parties agree that Glenn borrowed money from Gulf Coast Motors and that he had a gambling problem, but in that respect is no evidence as to what Glenn used the loan proceeds for. ? In its brief to this court, Gulf Coast Motors fails to cite to any evidence indicating that Mary derived an economic proceeds from the proceeds of any of the loans to Glenn. The loan process was informal. ? G ulf Coast Motors develop up a one-page journal to record Glenns loans. ? The ledger sheet showed the debits and confidences, and it contained the following statement at the bottom, signed by Glenn ? I agree to kick in Jerry Sellers2 as above with waiver of all exemptions. ? Mary did not sign the ledger sheet, and her name does not appear thereon.At various times among October 2000 and October 2002, Glenn borrowed money from Gulf Coast Motors. ? According to Gulf Coast Motorss bookkeeper, Glenn would come in and borrow money from Gulf Coast Motors and set up a compensation plan, get cash, then sometimes hed come in and he would want Sellers to cash a check for him and, conceal the check. ? At various times, Glenn made payments, typically in amounts of $300 or $600, to apply toward the balance of his account. ? The parties do not dispute that Glenn was indebted to Gulf Coast Motors.Sellers testified that he became concerned about Glenns debt in 2002 and that he asked Mary to warranty Glenns debt. ? According to Sellers, Mary agreed to make sure that Gulf Coast Motors was paying(a) if they would work with us. ? Sellers testified as follows I called Mary on the telephone. ? Mary, Glenn is up here wanting me to cash another check and, you know, hes got a liberal bill already run up here and he tells me when yall harvest home your timber ? youre going to pay off all this account And, ah, Mary said, well, Im gonna pay it. ? I stipulation you that well pay this off. Just work with us until we can sell our timber. ? I promise you you wont lose a dime. ? Youll be paid just as soon as we get the money. Sellers testified that he circumscribed Glenns payment terms and made additional advances based on Marys assurances that she would make payment. ? Sellers testified She said, Well, if you will redo those just put them in a payment where we can pay five of six hundred dollars a month well do that until we sell our timber. ? And based on her promise that s he would make sure it was paid, I did that for her because Glenn does not have anything in his name. ?And the only assurance I could go forward on was Miss Mary. And she promised me faithfully that I would be paid in full everything was owed and all she wanted me to do was work with them until they could sell their timber. Mary denied that she had promised to pay any of Glenns debt, and she denied that Sellers had asked her to pay Glenns debt. ? Mary testified that she neer received any money from Sellers or Gulf Coast Motors, and she denied that she had received any economic benefit from moneys lent by Gulf Coast Motors to Glenn. She testified that, if she had been asked, she would have advised Sellers not to sum money to Glenn. ?Because the trial court heard ore tenus evidence, the trial courts findings of fact are given a assertion of correctness, and we will not ferment the trial courts judgment based on those findings of fact unless it is clearly erroneous, without support ing evidence, manifestly unjust, or against the great charge of the evidence. ? Odom v. Hull, 658 So. 2d 442, 444 (Ala. 1995). ? Where, however, the issue is the application of law to the facts, the presumption of correctness has no application and our review is de novo. Brown v. City of Huntsville, 891 So. 2d 295 (Ala. 2004) ? Ex parte venire of Zoning Adjustment of Mobile, 636 So. 2d 415 (Ala. 1994). Our disposition of this case turns on the proper(a) application of the Statute of Frauds. ? Specifically, ? 8-9-2, Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part In the following cases, every agreement is avoid unless such agreement or some mark or memorandum thereof expressing the consideration is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith or some other person by him thereunto lawfully definitive in writing ? (3)?Every special promise to react for the debt, default option or miscarriage of another ? (7)? Every agreement or load to lend money, delay or forebe ar repayment thereof or to modify the provisions of such an agreement or commitment unless for consumer loans with a principal amount financed less than $25,000. Issue Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)? A promise to pay the debt of another is proscribe by the Statute of Frauds unless it is in writing. ? It is not disputed that Mary did not sign a note, warranty, or any other writing smart to pay any part of Glenns debts. Therefore, if the purported agreement to pay Glenns debt is within the Statute of Frauds, Mary is not liable even if the trial court found Sellerss testimony to be credible. ? Marys supposed oral promises are not enforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Gulf Coast Motors makes three lines in this appeal. ?First, it argues that Marys obligations were original promises to pay, rather than guaranty or confirmative agreements, and thus were not within the Statute of Frauds. ? The Alabama Supreme Court has defined original and c ollateral agreements as follows ? Collateral agreements are those in which the object of the promise is to fuck off the guarantor of anothers debt ? these are within the statute and must be in writing to be enforceable. ?Original agreements are those in which the effect of the promise is to pay the debt of another, but the object of the promise is to promote some take aim of the promisor. Fendley v. Dozier Hardware Co. , 449 So. 2d 1236, 1238 (Ala. 1984) (citations omitted). ? See also Lawler v. Cook Oil Co. , 640 So. 2d 950, 951 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). In this case, Marys alleged agreement was to guaranty payment of Glenns debt. ? Much of the credit had already been extended to Glenn when Mary allegedly made her oral promises to guaranty payment. Moreover, there is no suggestion in the record as to any economic purpose that Mary would advance by repayment of Glenns debt, and there is no evidence indicating that Mary received any economic benefit from the loans to Glenn. ? See Lan kford v. Rucker, 396 So. 2d 105 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981). ? We conclude that the issue presented involves an alleged guaranty, or collateral, agreement, not an original agreement. ?Second, Gulf Coast Motors argues that Ala.Code 1975, ? 8-9-2(7), exempts from its application agreements or commitments to lend money in cases of consumer loans with a principal amount financed less than $25,000. ? 8-9-2(7). ? This argument fails because ? 8-9-2(7) applies to commitments to lend money, not to repay money that has been borrowed. ? Carter v. Holland, 825 So. 2d 832, 836 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001). ? See Rozell v. Childers, 888 So. 2d 1244 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). ? Marys purported guaranty is not an agreement to lend money, and it is therefore not governed by ? -9-2(7). ? Moreover, a trans work on is covered by the Statute of Frauds if it comes within any of the arms of ? 8-9-2. ? Because Marys purported guaranty was covered by ? 8-9-2(3), it is irrelevant that it is excluded from the scope of ano ther subsection of the statute. ?Third, Gulf Coast Motors argues, in reliance upon Nelson Realty Co. v. Darling take a crap of Birmingham, Inc. , 267 Ala. 301, 101 So. 2d 78 (1957), that Mary committed fraud in the procurement of the loans and that the Statute of Frauds therefore does not bar recovery. This argument is without sexual morality because the Alabama Supreme Court recently held that an oral promise that is void by operation of the Statute of Frauds will not support an action against the promisor for promissory fraud. ? Bruce v. Cole, 854 So. 2d 47, 58 (Ala. 2003). ? To allow a promissory-fraud claim in such circumstances would cause the Statute of Frauds to become meaningless. ? Therefore, under Bruce, the promissory-fraud claim is barred because the underlying promise is barred by the Statute of Frauds. Holding How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won? Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Marys alleged promises to guaranty or repay Glenns debts were within the Statute of Frauds and, therefore, were not enforceable. ? Therefore, we reverse the trial courts judgment, and we remand the cause for the trial court to enter a judgment in Marys favor on all claims. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Reasoning Explain the logic that supported the courts decision. Case Questions Be sure to address and thoroughly answer each and every case question and each part of each question. Critical Legal Thinking What is a guaranty contract? Explain.Business moral philosophy Did Glenn act ethically in this case? Would Mary have acted unethically if she had actually orally guaranteed to repay her husbands debts and then raised the Statute of Frauds to prevent enforcement of the oral promises? Contemporary Business Are guaranty contracts often used in business? Can you think of a situation in which a guaranty contract would be needed? Conclusion This should summarize the key aspects of the decision and also your recommendations on the courts ruling. FOOTNOTES 1. ?When the loans were existence made, Glenn was not working and had no assets in his own name. Mary has hearty assets in her own name. 2. ?The parties do not discuss the discrepancy between the promise to pay Sellers and Gulf Coast Motorss claim to be the obligee. ? We note that Gulf Coast Motors is referred to in the record both as a corporation and as Jerry Sellers d/b/a Gulf Coast Motors. 3. ?Sellers testified that he refinanced Glenn per Marys request and put all the old other checks in with the other account and redid it at $600 a month. MURDOCK, Judge. YATES, P. J. , and CRAWLEY and THOMPSON, JJ. , concur. PITTMAN, J. , recuses himself.?