Moran

Moran v. Stetler CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 12, 2014G050050California2,043 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Beginning in June 2003, plaintiff and defendant, along with Langevin, purportedly entered into a series of promissory notes. In note 1, dated June 16, 2003,

2 defendant and Langevin promised to repay the principal amount, plus 10 percent interest, with “the entire principal and interest amount [to] be repaid on September 1, 2003.” Note 2, dated March 18, 2004, defendant and Langevin agreed to repay the principal amount in “four [monthly] consecutive installments of interest,” with “the balance of the principal . . . to be included with the final installment” and “[t]he entire principal and interest amount [to] be repaid on July 18th, 2004.” Defendant and Langevin were not the borrowers on both note 3, dated December 9, 2004, and note 4, dated December 27, 2004. Rather, the borrowers were Langevin Stetler, Inc. doing business as Diversified Communications Services, and its shareholders (collectively LangStet). Defendant and Langevin acted as guarantors. The notes had maturity dates of December 9, 2007, and December 27, 2007, respectively. Both notes had acceleration clauses, stating that if payment was over 15 days late, the unpaid amounts became…

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.