Hamedani

Remington Investments, Inc. v. Hamedani

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 471·55 Cal. App. 2d 1033·55 Cal. App. 4th 1033·64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 376·97 Daily Journal DAR 7452
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 12, 1997B099983California3,781 words

Opinion

Opinion

Zebrowski, J.

This case concerns the requirements for proving a debt owing to a bank taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). After the FDIC took over the bank in this case, the FDIC assigned the bank’s assets to the plaintiff. One such asset was the lender’s position in a “revolving line of credit.” The line of credit was evidenced by a document somewhat inaccurately entitled “Promissory Note.” The Promissory Note document was not a promissory note for a specific sum, but rather provided that defendant was liable for all sums which might either be “advanced” to defendant or “credited to any of [defendant’s] accounts with [the bank].” In the Promissory Note document, defendant promised to repay either $106,775 “or so much as may be outstanding, together with interest on each of the unpaid outstanding principal balances from the date of the advance until repayment of the advance or maturity, whichever occurs first.” The Promissory Note document itself does not reveal exactly how much was advanced or how much was repaid.

The plaintiff as assignee of the FDIC sued defendant for the amount plaintiff claimed was owing on the line of credit. Plaintiff moved for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.