Charter Bank Case

1773 Words 8 Pages
Register to read the introduction… Holly Hill issued a promissory note for the mortgage to Rogers and Blythe, a couple of months later Rogers and Blythe took out a loan from Charter Bank of Gainesville. In order for Rogers and Blythe to secure the loan they took out from Charter Bank they had to transfer the promissory note they had created with Holly Hill. Sometime later Rogers and Blythe defaulted on the loan. Charter Bank sued in order to recover on the Holly Hill’s promissory note.
From that information the mortgage in the note is nonnegotiable. Some of the reasons why Charter Bank doesn’t have a negotiable contract are because of the initial contract from Holly Hill to Rogers and Blythe was a conditional promise to pay. Upon Rogers and Blythe transferring the rights to Charter Bank promise became unconditional and isn’t negotiable because of the risk with Holly Hill not paying full or at all would fall on Rogers and Blythe who held the contract originally. Another reason is that Charter Bank isn’t the right enforcer of the promissory note and cannot force Holly Hill from not making the payment. Also the promissory note doesn’t have Charter Bank as the ones to pay as the party which will also make the promissory note
…show more content…
Answer:
When Anthony and Dolores Angelini entered into a contract with Lustro Aluminum Products Inc. they had signed a promissory note with a security of $5,363.40. The key point in the note’s language stated that the promissory note wouldn’t mature for 60 days after the certificate of completion was signed.
Lustro, assigned General Investment Corporation after 10 days for consideration of the promissory note. The job was never completed at the Angelini’s home by Lustro, which meant that the note had never become due, nor can a certificate of completion be issued or any legal certificate for that matter. General isn’t able to collect from the Angelini’s because the work was never completed and General isn’t considered a holder of the note. Therefore the Angelini’s would win the case.
…show more content…
The Mahaffey’s signed a promissory note with Mortgage Finance Corporation. After the job was completed, Five Star failed to complete certain parts of the agreement; because of the defects the Mahaffey’s refused to make the payments due on the note. Mortgage finance instituted foreclosure proceedings to collect the money owed.

The Federal Trade Commission rule can possibly protect the Mahaffey’s because the rule prevents separating the consumer’s duty to pay the credit and the seller’s duty to perform. However, the Mahaffey’s have to pay the note regardless and shouldn’t stop paying it. Five Star would be held liable for the repairs and completion of the job. The Mahaffey’s can also raise the defense that there was a breach of contract with Five Star and seek to recover any damages; at this point Mortgage Finance would be able to also seek to recover any financial losses as well as Five Star.

Related Documents