Gulf Coast Motor

This course includes a challenging Course Project due in ca leavear week 6. Be motility of this, you will need to spend additional time and effort throughout the course to work on your project rather than wait until Week 6. The field of operation of the project may be found on any Case from any chapter as reduceed in this course. Examples are Case 10. 3- Montgomery v. English on page 175 and Case 14. 2- Page v. disjunction bank Motors on page 111. Choose the case you wish to research and then do the followers Read and understand the case. Show your Analysis and Reasoning and throw it clear you understand the material.Be authorized to use the concepts of the course to show your cogitate. Summarize the situation. Dedicate at least one heading to each following outline topic ? Parties Identify the plaintiff and the defendant and tell nearthing about them. Facts Summarize those facts circumstantial to the out lift of the case. Procedure Who brought the entreaty? What was th e issuance in the lower courtyard(s)? Issue Note the central question or questions on which the case turns. Holding How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won? 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. Conclusion This should ingeminate 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 significant research outdoor(a) of the book and demonstrate that you have in a very obvious way. This refers to research beyond the legal research. This involves something about the parties or other interesting associate area.Show something you have discovered about the case, parties, or other important element from your own research. Be sure this is obvious and adds value beyond the legal reasoning of t he case. PAGE v. GULF COAST MOTORS Mary R. PAGE v. GULF COAST MOTORS. 2030401. December 30, 2004 David Vaughn, Daphne, for appellant. James Rebarchak of Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, L. L. C. , Mobile, for appellee. Parties Identify the plaintiff and the defendant and tell something about them. disjunction Coast Motors sued Glenn and Mary Page to recover money lent at various times to Glenn. Mary asserted the affirmative defenses of the lack of consideration and the Statute 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 Mary, Glenn, and representatives of Gulf Coast Motors. ? subsequently the trial, the parties submitted briefs on the application of the Statute of Frauds as to the claims asserted against Mary. On November 7, 2003, the trial court entered a judgment in the amount of $23,020 in troupe favor of Gulf 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 non 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 money from Gulf Coast Motors on a recurring basis. ? The parties agree that Glenn borrowed money from Gulf Coast Motors and that he had a free rein problem, but there is no bear witness 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 benefit from the proceeds of any of the loans to Glenn. The loan process was informal. ? Gulf Coast Motors set up a one-page book to record Glenns loans. ? The ledger sheet showed the debits and character references, and it c ontained the following statement at the bottom, signed by Glenn ? I agree to relent Jerry Sellers2 as above with waiver of all exemptions. ? Mary did non sign the ledger sheet, and her name does not appear thereon.At various times between 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 compensatement plan, get cash, then sometimes hed come in and he would pauperization Sellers to cash a check for him and, hold the check. ? At various times, Glenn made standments, 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 guaranty Glenns debt. ? According to Sellers, Mary agreed to make sure that Gulf Coast Motors was paid 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 big bill already run up here and he tells me when yall harvest your timber ? youre going to pay off all this account And, ah, Mary said, well, Im gonna pay it. ? I ring 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 further as soon as we get the money. Sellers testified that he modified Glenns payment terms and made additional advances based on Marys assurances that she would make payment. ? Sellers testified She said, Well, if you will rework 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 she 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 wa s dangle 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 never 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 lend money to Glenn. ?Because the trial court heard ore tenus evidence, the trial courts findings of fact are given a presumptuousness of correctness, and we will not reverse the trial courts judgment based on those findings of fact unless it is clearly erroneous, without supporting evidence, manifestly unjust, or against the great weight of the evidence. ? Odom v. Hull, 658 So. 2d 442, 444 (Ala. 1995). ? Where, how ever, 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 Board of Zoning allowance account of Mobile, 636 So. 2d 415 (Ala. 1994). Our disposition of this case turns on the proper application of the Statute of Frauds. ? Specifically, ? 8-9-2, Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part In the following cases, every organisation is repress unless such agreement or some note 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 authorized in writing ? (3)?Every special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another ? (7)? Every agreement or commitment to lend money, delay or forebear repayment thereof or to modify the provisions of such an agreement or commitment except for consumer loans with a principal amount fi nanced 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 barred by the Statute of Frauds unless it is in writing. ? It is not disputed that Mary did not sign a note, guaranty, or any other writing promising 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 alleged oral promises are not enforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Gulf Coast Motors makes three arguments in this appeal. ?First, it argues that Marys obligations were original promises to pay, rather than guaranty or collateral agreements, and thus were not within the Statute of Frauds. ? The Alabama Supreme motor lodge has defined original and collateral agreements as follows ? Collateral agreements are those in which the object of the promise is to become the guarantor of anot hers debt ? these are within the statute and mustiness 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 purpose 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 Lankford v. Rucker, 396 So. 2d 105 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981). ? We conclude that the issue presented involves an alleged guaranty, or collate ral, 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 transaction is covered by the Statute of Frauds if it comes within any of the subsections of ? 8-9-2. ? Because Marys purported guaranty was covered by ? 8-9-2(3), it is irrelevant that it is excluded from the range of mountains of another subsection of the statute. ?Third, Gulf Coast Motors argues, in reliance upon Nelson Realty Co. v. Darling Shop of Birmingham, Inc. , 267 Ala. 301, 101 So. 2d 78 (1957), that Mary committed spoof in the procurement of the loans and that the Statute of Frauds therefore does not bar recovery. This argument is without merit 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 caus e 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 Ethics 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 required? Conclusion This should summarize the key aspects of the decision and also your recommendations on the courts ruling. FOOTNOTES 1. ?When the loans were being made, Glenn was not working and had no assets in his own name. Mary has significant assets in her own name. 2. ?The p arties 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.?