Wells Fargo Bank Nat. Assn. v. Mirrafati CA4/3
Opinion
Opinion
Thompson, J.
facts (Stipulated Facts) and evidence (Stipulated Documents), finding defendants liable on the guaranties, their defenses “unavailing,” and deciding the only remaining issue was the amount due. In a separate trial the jury determined the amount of damages. On appeal, defendants contend there are disputed factual issues that should have been tried to a jury as to whether: defendants are liable on the guaranties; the anti- deficiency and one form of action rules bar plaintiff from recovering on the guaranties; plaintiff gave consideration for the guaranties; and the amount of damages should be offset on a theory of promissory estoppel. Finally, defendants maintain their affirmative defenses should not have been decided in the bench trial. First, promissory estoppel was tried and there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s decision in favor of plaintiff. As to the other defenses specifically addressed in their briefs, defendants did not overcome the stipulated facts and evidence. Finally, defendants did not adequately address the remaining affirmative defenses and claims as to them are forfeited. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.