ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Appellate Law Blogs -> North Carolina Appellate Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Appellate Law

: North Carolina Appellate Blog

COA Majority: Assignment of Promissory Note Also Assigns Associated Guaranty

By Sean E. Andrussier

ADVERTISEMENTS
Today the COA majority held that a guaranty executed contemporaneously with a promissory note "follows" the Note where the Note is later assigned to a party but the guaranty is not. The case is Self-Help Ventures Fund v. Custom Services.

Self-Help, a Certified Development Company, made a loan to Custom Services through the US Small Business Administration's 504 loan program. The individual defendants guaranteed the promissory note securing the loan. Self-Help assigned and delivered the Note and guaranties to the US Small Business Administration ("SBA"). The SBA later reassigned and delivered the Note to Self-Help, but did not the reassign guaranties to it.

Custom Services and the guarantors defaulted on the loan. Defendants argued that Self-Help was not a party in interest and could not enforce the guaranties because the SBA only assigned the Note back to Self-Help and did not execute a separate assignment of the guaranties.

The COA majority held that a transfer of a promissory note also operates as an assignment of an associated guaranty, even where the note is not referenced in the assignment. The majority further held that Self-Help was a real party in interest because it was the assignee of the Note, relying on N.C.R. Civ. P. 17(a) and the fact that the guaranty contracts contained a clear promise to repay and clearly spelled out any assignee's right to collect from the guarantors. The COA also noted that because the Note and guaranties were executed contemporaneously, they should be construed together.

Judge Wynn dissented, explaining that because the SBA did not explicitly assign the guaranty back to Self-Help, Self-Help was not the assignee and could not enforce the guaranties. Judge Wynn pointed out the unique structure of the SBA 504 loan program, which involves investors who purchase interests in debenture pools that fund the 504 loans. Judge Wynn thus noted that Self-Help and the SBA "undoubtedly shared the same interest in repayment" but were separate entities, and the guaranties had to be expressly assigned back to Self-Help in order for them to be enforced.

Full post as published by North Carolina Appellate Blog on September 15, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0122 secs (new cache)