.jpg)
Guaranty of Commercial Lease
Although it is not exactly on point, take a look at Coles v. Glaser (CA Ct App - DJDAR 8/15/16) discussing a co-obligor under a settlement agreement (as opposed to previously being guarantor pre-settlement). The case affirms the liability of the co-obligor where the bankruptcy trustee avoids and recovers the settlement payment made by the borrower/debtor.
Eric
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
Torrance, California 90503
Telephone: (310) 792-5864
Facsimile: (310) 347-4353
Email: MitnickLaw@aol.com, MitnickLaw@gmail.com
Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email, and delete the email message you received and all of the attached files.
***NOTICE OF EX PARTE HEARINGS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY EMAIL***
To: cdcbaa
Sent: Sun, Nov 6, 2016 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Guaranty of Commercial Lease
Thanks Maria. These are good arguments. Defendant is arguing that there was an unconditional release (which is questionable).My questions is, even if there was an unconditional release, does a reservation of rights overcome that release, in California?
Best Regards,
Selena Rojhani
This message has been sent from a mobile device. Please excuse its brevity.
On Nov 1, 2016, at 6:27 PM, 'MARIA W. TAM' TAMMAILBOX@GMAIL.COM [cdcbaa] wrote:
Selena:
I will argue that since the opposing side did not perform the settlement agreement in full, therefore, you do not have to give them the benefit of the settlement agreement (ie release of the guarantor brother). Also, since the guarantor brother was not a signing party to the settlement agreement, I do not believe that he can claim that you breach the settlement agreement by not releasing him since he is not a party to the agreement. He is just a third party beneficiary.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:05 PM, selenadallal@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
Hi All,
I have a tough case with a difficult opposingcounsel who is threatening malicious prosecution, sanctions, etc I need someguidance. It involves a standard commercial lease and guaranty.
Background:
Using another law firm, Landlord Client filed a UD case andentered into a settlement agreement (50k)with the Tenant. The tenantalmost immediately defaulted on the settlement agreement.
About a year after the settlement agreement was reached (andbreached), Landlord Client contacted me because he realized that the guarantorand his brother, both of whom were principals of the Tenant made empty promisesover the course of a couple of years while the UD case was pending; and,unbeknown to the landlord client, the guarantor had previously (about a yearbefore the UD case was filed) sold his shares of the tenant to his brother, andthereafter disappeared. The guarantor was not involved with thesettlement agreement.
We filed suit in CA Superior court for 300k on causes ofaction including breach of lease, breach of guaranty, fraud etc, against boththe guarantor and non-guarantor brothers; the Tenant; and subsequently formedbusinesses of the Tenant and its principals. All parties are in defaultexcept for the guarantor brother and the pressing issue whether the guarantorbrother was released from all liability based on the settlement agreement whichunconditionally released the tenant, but for the terms of the settlement;HOWEVER, the release in the settlement agreement stated that the release wassubject to the terms of this Agreement and expressly reserved theClient Landlords right to go after the guarantor without limit upon default ofthe settlement agreement. The guaranty includes a consent and waiverclause, but does not specifically mention settlement agreements.
Issue:
Guarantors position is that under CA Civil CodeSection 2809/10, the unconditional release in the settlement agreement releasedthe Tenant and therefore released the guarantor of all liability as a matter oflaw . My preliminary research shows that the consent and waiver clauseprecludes the guarantors defense and he remains liable on the breached lease;and the express reservations of the settlement agreement make it questionablewhether the release was unconditional.
I welcome any input/feedback and thanks so much.
BestRegards,
SelenaRojhani, Esq.
TheRojhani Law Group
9025Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse, Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Office:(310)288-2132 Cell: (310)770-6469 Fax: (310)861-5111
www.selenarojhani.com
THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND IS ONLY INTENDED FOR USE ORVIEWING BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOUHAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER OF SAME, ANDDESTROY THIS MESSAGE TO THE FURTHEST EXTENT WHICH IS PERMITTED BY YOUR EMAIL,AND DISREGARD ITS CONTENTS. ANY USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS CONFIDENTIALMESSAGE BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS PUNISHABLE UNDER STATEAND FEDERAL LAWS.
THIS EMAIL MAY CONTAIN QUESTIONS,OPINIONS, OR RESPONSES TO INQUIRIES OR OTHERCOMMUNICATIONS REGARDING YOUR LEGAL MATTER. PLEASE NOTE THAT NOTHING IN THISEMAIL SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION, AND THATUNLESS THERE IS AN EXPRESS REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT IN WRITING BETWEEN YOU ANDTHIS FIRM, THAT THIS FIRM DOES NOT REPRESENT YOU IN YOUR MATTER.
THISIS AN EMAIL FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FORTHAT PURPOSE. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT COLLECTION ACTIVITIES, YOU MAYCONTACT THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AT 1-800-FTC-HELP, OR VISIT THEM ON THEWEB AT Federal Trade Commission | Protecting America's Consumers.
Federal Trade Commission | Protecting America's Cons...
Changing Consumer Demographics 9:00AM Constitution CenterWashingtonDC
View on www.ftc.gov
Preview by Yahoo
Although it is not exactly on point, take a look at Coles v. Glaser (CA Ct App - DJDAR 8/15/16) discussing a co-obligor under a settlement agreement (as opposed to previously being guarantor pre-settlement). The case affirms the liability of the co-obligor where the bankruptcy trustee avoids and recovers the settlement payment made by the borrower/debtor.
Eric
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
Torrance, California 90503
Telephone: (310) 792-5864
Facsimile: (310) 347-4353
Email: MitnickLaw@aol.com, MitnickLaw@gmail.com
Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email, and delete the email message you received and all of the attached files.
.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}
***NOTICE OF EX PARTE HEARINGS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY EMAIL***
-----Original Message-----
<cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
To: cdcbaa <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Nov 6, 2016 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Guaranty of Commercial Lease
Thanks Maria. These are good arguments. Defendant is arguing that there was an unconditional release (which is questionable).My questions is, even if there was an unconditional release, does a reservation of rights overcome that release, in California?
Best Regards,
Selena Rojhani
This message has been sent from a mobile device. Please excuse its brevity.
On Nov 1, 2016, at 6:27 PM, 'MARIA W. TAM' TAMMAILBOX@GMAIL.COM [cdcbaa] <> wrote:
Selena:
I will argue that since the opposing side did not perform the settlement agreement in full, therefore, you do not have to give them the benefit of the settlement agreement (ie release of the guarantor brother). Also, since the guarantor brother was not a signing party to the settlement agreement, I do not believe that he can claim that you breach the settlement agreement by not releasing him since he is not a party to the agreement. He is just a third party beneficiary.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:05 PM, selenadallal@gmail.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I have a tough case with a difficult opposing
counsel who is threatening malicious prosecution, sanctions, etc I need some
guidance. It involves a standard commercial lease and guaranty.
Background:
Using another law firm, Landlord Client filed a UD case and
entered into a settlement agreement (50k)with the Tenant. The tenant
almost immediately defaulted on the settlement agreement.
About a year after the settlement agreement was reached (and
breached), Landlord Client contacted me because he realized that the guarantor
and his brother, both of whom were principals of the Tenant made empty promises
over the course of a couple of years while the UD case was pending; and,
unbeknown to the landlord client, the guarantor had previously (about a year
before the UD case was filed) sold his shares of the tenant to his brother, and
thereafter disappeared. The guarantor was not involved with the
settlement agreement.
We filed suit in CA Superior court for 300k on causes of
action including breach of lease, breach of guaranty, fraud etc, against both
the guarantor and non-guarantor brothers; the Tenant; and subsequently formed
businesses of the Tenant and its principals. All parties are in default
except for the guarantor brother and the pressing issue whether the guarantor
brother was released from all liability based on the settlement agreement which
unconditionally released the tenant, but for the terms of the settlement;
HOWEVER, the release in the settlement agreement stated that the release was
y reserved the
Client Landlords right to go after the guarantor without limit upon default of
the settlement agreement. The guaranty includes a consent and waiver
clause, but does not specifically mention settlement agreements.
Issue:
Guarantors position is that under CA Civil Code
Section 2809/10, the unconditional release in the settlement agreement released
the Tenant and therefore released the guarantor of all liability as a matter of
law . My preliminary research shows that the consent and waiver clause
precludes the guarantors defense and he remains liable on the breached lease;
and the express reservations of the settlement agreement make it questionable
whether the release was unconditional.
I welcome any input/feedback and thanks so much.
Best
Regards,
Selena
Rojhani, Esq.
The
Rojhani Law Group
9025
Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse, Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Office:
(310)288-2132 Cell: (310)770-6469
Fax: (310)861-5111
www.selenarojhani.com
THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND IS ONLY INTENDED FOR USE OR
VIEWING BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU
HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER OF SAME, AND
DESTROY THIS MESSAGE TO THE FURTHEST EXTENT WHICH IS PERMITTED BY YOUR EMAIL,
AND DISREGARD ITS CONTENTS. ANY USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS CONFIDENTIAL
MESSAGE BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS PUNISHABLE UNDER STATE
AND FEDERAL LAWS.
THIS EMAIL MAY CONTAIN QUESTIONS,OPINIONS, OR RESPONSES TO INQUIRIES OR OTHER
COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING YOUR LEGAL MATTER. PLEASE NOTE THAT NOTHING IN THIS
EMAIL SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION, AND THAT
UNLESS THERE IS AN EXPRESS REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT IN WRITING BETWEEN YOU AND
THIS FIRM, THAT THIS FIRM DOES NOT REPRESENT YOU IN YOUR MATTER.
THIS
IS AN EMAIL FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR
THAT PURPOSE. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT COLLECTION ACTIVITIES, YOU MAY
CONTACT THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AT 1-800-FTC-HELP, OR VISIT THEM ON THE
WEB AT Federal Trade Commission | Protecting America's Consumers.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks Maria. These are good arguments. Defendant is arguing that there was an unconditional release (which is questionable).My questions is, even if there was an unconditional release, does a reservation of rights overcome that release, in California?
Best Regards,
Selena Rojhani
This message has been sent from a mobile device. Please excuse its brevity.
> On Nov 1, 2016, at 6:27 PM, 'MARIA W. TAM' TAMMAILBOX@GMAIL.COM [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Selena:
>
> I will argue that since the opposing side did not perform the settlement agreement in full, therefore, you do not have to give them the benefit of the settlement agreement (ie release of the guarantor brother). Also, since the guarantor brother was not a signing party to the settlement agreement, I do not believe that he can claim that you breach the settlement agreement by not releasing him since he is not a party to the agreement. He is just a third party beneficiary.
>
>
>
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:05 PM, selenadallal@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I have a tough case with a difficult opposing counsel who is threatening malicious prosecution, sanctions, etc I need some guidance. It involves a standard commercial lease and guaranty.
>>
>>
>>
>> Background:
>>
>> Using another law firm, Landlord Client filed a UD case and entered into a settlement agreement (50k)with the Tenant. The tenant almost immediately defaulted on the settlement agreement.
>>
>>
>>
>> About a year after the settlement agreement was reached (and breached), Landlord Client contacted me because he realized that the guarantor and his brother, both of whom were principals of the Tenant made empty promises over the course of a couple of years while the UD case was pending; and, unbeknown to the landlord client, the guarantor had previously (about a year before the UD case was filed) sold his shares of the tenant to his brother, and thereafter disappeared. The guarantor was not involved with the settlement agreement.
>>
>>
>>
>> We filed suit in CA Superior court for 300k on causes of action including breach of lease, breach of guaranty, fraud etc, against both the guarantor and non-guarantor brothers; the Tenant; and subsequently formed businesses of the Tenant and its principals. All parties are in default except for the guarantor brother and the pressing issue whether the guarantor brother was released from all liability based on the settlement agreement which unconditionally released the tenant, but for the terms of the settlement; HOWEVER, the release in the settlement agreement stated that the release was erved the Client Landlords right to go after the guarantor without limit upon default of the settlement agreement. The guaranty includes a consent and waiver clause, but does not specifically mention settlement agreements.
>>
>>
>>
>> Issue:
>>
>> Guarantors position is that under CA Civil Code Section 2809/10, the unconditional release in the settlement agreement released the Tenant and therefore released the guarantor of all liability as a matter of law . My preliminary research shows that the consent and waiver clause precludes the guarantors defense and he remains liable on the breached lease; and the express reservations of the settlement agreement make it questionable whether the release was unconditional.
>>
>>
>>
>> I welcome any input/feedback and thanks so much.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Selena Rojhani, Esq.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Rojhani Law Group
>>
>> 9025 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse, Beverly Hills, CA 90211
>>
>> Office: (310)288-2132 Cell: (310)770-6469 Fax: (310)861-5111
>>
>> www.selenarojhani.com
>>
>>
>>
>> THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND IS ONLY INTENDED FOR USE OR VIEWING BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER OF SAME, AND DESTROY THIS MESSAGE TO THE FURTHEST EXTENT WHICH IS PERMITTED BY YOUR EMAIL, AND DISREGARD ITS CONTENTS. ANY USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS CONFIDENTIAL MESSAGE BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS PUNISHABLE UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS.
>>
>> THIS EMAIL MAY CONTAIN QUESTIONS,OPINIONS, OR RESPONSES TO INQUIRIES OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING YOUR LEGAL MATTER. PLEASE NOTE THAT NOTHING IN THIS EMAIL SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION, AND THAT UNLESS THERE IS AN EXPRESS REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT IN WRITING BETWEEN YOU AND THIS FIRM, THAT THIS FIRM DOES NOT REPRESENT YOU IN YOUR MATTER.
>>
>> THIS IS AN EMAIL FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT COLLECTION ACTIVITIES, YOU MAY CONTACT THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AT 1-800-FTC-HELP, OR VISIT THEM ON THE WEB AT Federal Trade Commission | Protecting America's Consumers.
>>
>>
>> Federal Trade Commission | Protecting America's Cons...
>> Changing Consumer Demographics 9:00AM Constitution CenterWashingtonDC
>> View on www.ftc.gov
>> Preview by Yahoo
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Reply-To: "MARIA W. TAM"
X-Original-Return-Path: "MARIA W. TAM"
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
Selena:
I will argue that since the opposing side did not perform the
settlement agreement in full, therefore, you do not have to give them the
benefit of the settlement agreement (ie release of the guarantor brother).
Also, since the guarantor brother was not a signing party to the settlement
agreement, I do not believe that he can claim that you breach the
settlement agreement by not releasing him since he is not a party to the
agreement. He is just a third party beneficiary.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:05 PM, selenadallal@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have a tough case with a difficult opposing counsel who is threatening
> malicious prosecution, sanctions, etc I need some guidance. It involves
> a standard commercial lease and guaranty.
>
>
>
> *Background:*
>
> Using another law firm, Landlord Client filed a UD case and entered into a
> settlement agreement (50k)with the Tenant. The tenant almost immediately
> defaulted on the settlement agreement.
>
>
>
> About a year after the settlement agreement was reached (and breached),
> Landlord Client contacted me because he realized that the guarantor and his
> brother, both of whom were principals of the Tenant made empty promises
> over the course of a couple of years while the UD case was pending; and,
> unbeknown to the landlord client, the guarantor had previously (about a
> year before the UD case was filed) sold his shares of the tenant to his
> brother, and thereafter disappeared. The guarantor was not involved with
> the settlement agreement.
>
>
>
> We filed suit in CA Superior court for 300k on causes of action including
> breach of lease, breach of guaranty, fraud etc, against both the guarantor
> and non-guarantor brothers; the Tenant; and subsequently formed businesses
> of the Tenant and its principals. All parties are in default except for
> the guarantor brother and the pressing issue whether the guarantor brother
> was released from all liability based on the settlement agreement which
> unconditionally released the tenant, but for the terms of the settlement;
> HOWEVER, the release in the settlement agreement *stated that the release
> was subject to the terms of this Agreement and expressly reserved the
> Client Landlords right to go after the guarantor without limit upon
> default of the settlement agreement*. The guaranty includes a consent
> and waiver clause, but does not specifically mention settlement agreements.
>
>
>
> *Issue:*
>
> Guarantors position is that under CA Civil Code Section 2809/10, the
> unconditional release in the settlement agreement released the Tenant and
> therefore released the guarantor of all liability as a matter of law . My
> preliminary research shows that the consent and waiver clause precludes the
> guarantors defense and he remains liable on the breached lease; and the
> express reservations of the settlement agreement make it questionable
> whether the release was unconditional.
>
>
>
> I welcome any input/feedback and thanks so much.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Selena Rojhani, Esq.
>
>
>
> The Rojhani Law Group
>
> 9025 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse, Beverly Hills, CA 90211
>
> Office: (310)288-2132 Cell: (310)770-6469 Fax: (310)861-5111
>
> www.selenarojhani.com
>
>
>
> THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND IS ONLY INTENDED FOR USE OR VIEWING BY
> THE INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU HAVE
> RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER OF SAME, AND
> DESTROY THIS MESSAGE TO THE FURTHEST EXTENT WHICH IS PERMITTED BY YOUR
> EMAIL, AND DISREGARD ITS CONTENTS. ANY USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS
> CONFIDENTIAL MESSAGE BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS
> PUNISHABLE UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS.
>
> THIS EMAIL MAY CONTAIN QUESTIONS,OPINIONS, OR RESPONSES TO INQUIRIES OR
> OTHER COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING YOUR LEGAL MATTER. PLEASE NOTE THAT NOTHING
> IN THIS EMAIL SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION,
> AND THAT UNLESS THERE IS AN EXPRESS REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT IN WRITING
> BETWEEN YOU AND THIS FIRM, THAT THIS FIRM DOES NOT REPRESENT YOU IN YOUR
> MATTER.
>
> THIS IS AN EMAIL FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE
> USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT COLLECTION
> ACTIVITIES, YOU MAY CONTACT THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AT 1-800-FTC-HELP,
> OR VISIT THEM ON THE WEB AT Federal Trade Commission | Protecting
> America's Consumers .
> [image: image]
> Federal Trade Commission | Protecting America's Cons...
>
> Changing Consumer Demographics 9:00AM Constitution CenterWashingtonDC
> View on www.ftc.gov
> Preview by Yahoo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Selena:m the settlement agreement in full, therefore, you do not have to give them the benefit of the settlement agreement (ierelease of the guarantor brother). Also, since the guarantor brotherwas not a signing party to the settlement agreement, I do not believe that he can claim that you breach the settlement agreementby not releasing him since he is not a party to the agreement. He is just a third party beneficiary. On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:05 PM, <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Hi All,I have a tough case with a difficult opposing
counsel who is threatening malicious prosecution, sanctions, etc I need some
guidance. It involves a standard commercial lease and guaranty.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
X-Original-Return-Path: "MARIA W. TAM"
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
Selena:
I will argue that since the opposing side did not perform the
settlement agreement in full, therefore, you do not have to give them the
benefit of the settlement agreement (ie release of the guarantor brother).
Also, since the guarantor brother was not a signing party to the settlement
agreement, I do not believe that he can claim that you breach the
settlement agreement by not releasing him since he is not a party to the
agreement. He is just a third party beneficiary.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:05 PM, selenadallal@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have a tough case with a difficult opposing counsel who is threatening
> malicious prosecution, sanctions, etc I need some guidance. It involves
> a standard commercial lease and guaranty.
>
>
>
> *Background:*
>
> Using another law firm, Landlord Client filed a UD case and entered into a
> settlement agreement (50k)with the Tenant. The tenant almost immediately
> defaulted on the settlement agreement.
>
>
>
> About a year after the settlement agreement was reached (and breached),
> Landlord Client contacted me because he realized that the guarantor and his
> brother, both of whom were principals of the Tenant made empty promises
> over the course of a couple of years while the UD case was pending; and,
> unbeknown to the landlord client, the guarantor had previously (about a
> year before the UD case was filed) sold his shares of the tenant to his
> brother, and thereafter disappeared. The guarantor was not involved with
> the settlement agreement.
>
>
>
> We filed suit in CA Superior court for 300k on causes of action including
> breach of lease, breach of guaranty, fraud etc, against both the guarantor
> and non-guarantor brothers; the Tenant; and subsequently formed businesses
> of the Tenant and its principals. All parties are in default except for
> the guarantor brother and the pressing issue whether the guarantor brother
> was released from all liability based on the settlement agreement which
> unconditionally released the tenant, but for the terms of the settlement;
> HOWEVER, the release in the settlement agreement *stated that the release
> was subject to the terms of this Agreement and expressly reserved the
> Client Landlords right to go after the guarantor without limit upon
> default of the settlement agreement*. The guaranty includes a consent
> and waiver clause, but does not specifically mention settlement agreements.
>
>
>
> *Issue:*
>
> Guarantors position is that under CA Civil Code Section 2809/10, the
> unconditional release in the settlement agreement released the Tenant and
> therefore released the guarantor of all liability as a matter of law . My
> preliminary research shows that the consent and waiver clause precludes the
> guarantors defense and he remains liable on the breached lease; and the
> express reservations of the settlement agreement make it questionable
> whether the release was unconditional.
>
>
>
> I welcome any input/feedback and thanks so much.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Selena Rojhani, Esq.
>
>
>
> The Rojhani Law Group
>
> 9025 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse, Beverly Hills, CA 90211
>
> Office: (310)288-2132 Cell: (310)770-6469 Fax: (310)861-5111
>
> www.selenarojhani.com
>
>
>
> THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND IS ONLY INTENDED FOR USE OR VIEWING BY
> THE INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU HAVE
> RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER OF SAME, AND
> DESTROY THIS MESSAGE TO THE FURTHEST EXTENT WHICH IS PERMITTED BY YOUR
> EMAIL, AND DISREGARD ITS CONTENTS. ANY USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS
> CONFIDENTIAL MESSAGE BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS
> PUNISHABLE UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS.
>
> THIS EMAIL MAY CONTAIN QUESTIONS,OPINIONS, OR RESPONSES TO INQUIRIES OR
> OTHER COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING YOUR LEGAL MATTER. PLEASE NOTE THAT NOTHING
> IN THIS EMAIL SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION,
> AND THAT UNLESS THERE IS AN EXPRESS REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT IN WRITING
> BETWEEN YOU AND THIS FIRM, THAT THIS FIRM DOES NOT REPRESENT YOU IN YOUR
> MATTER.
>
> THIS IS AN EMAIL FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE
> USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT COLLECTION
> ACTIVITIES, YOU MAY CONTACT THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AT 1-800-FTC-HELP,
> OR VISIT THEM ON THE WEB AT Federal Trade Commission | Protecting
> America's Consumers .
> [image: image]
> Federal Trade Commission | Protecting America's Cons...
>
> Changing Consumer Demographics 9:00AM Constitution CenterWashingtonDC
> View on www.ftc.gov
> Preview by Yahoo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Selena:m the settlement agreement in full, therefore, you do not have to give them the benefit of the settlement agreement (ierelease of the guarantor brother). Also, since the guarantor brotherwas not a signing party to the settlement agreement, I do not believe that he can claim that you breach the settlement agreementby not releasing him since he is not a party to the agreement. He is just a third party beneficiary. On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:05 PM, <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Hi All,I have a tough case with a difficult opposing
counsel who is threatening malicious prosecution, sanctions, etc I need some
guidance. It involves a standard commercial lease and guaranty.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.