Fanucchi & Limi Farms v. United Agri Products
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
414 F.3d 1075 (2005)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Fanucchi & Limi Farms (Fanucchi) (plaintiff) borrowed more than $1,000,000 from United Agri Products Financial Services (United) (defendant) in 1994 to finance Fanucchi’s 1995 crop. The loan agreement set out repayment terms and gave United a security interest in Fanucchi’s crops. Fanucchi’s 1995 crops failed, and Fanucchi was unable to repay the loan. According to Fanucchi, United had persuaded Fanucchi not to file for bankruptcy and orally promised to: (1) subordinate United’s debt to any new lenders of Fanucchi’s for up to five years, (2) split any future crop proceeds so that United would receive 60 percent and Fanucchi’s new lenders would receive 40 percent, and (3) forgive Fanucchi’s remaining debt at the end of the five-year period if Fanucchi paid the debt down to either $300,000 or $400,000. Fanucchi found new lenders for its 1996 and 1997 crops, and the crop proceeds from those years were split accordingly between United and Fanucchi’s new lenders. In 1998, United refused to subordinate its security interest in Fanucchi’s crops to one of Fanucchi’s new lenders. Fanucchi sued United for breach of contract, arguing that the oral agreement either modified or novated the original loan agreement. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of United. Fanucchi appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fletcher, J.)
Concurrence (Beezer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.