Levin v. Meagher
Court of Appeals for the First District of California
2004 WL 1664864 (2004)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Todd Meagher (defendant) sold his ownership interest in Credit.com to Adam Levin (plaintiff). Levin paid part of the price with a $331,000 promissory note, secured by a letter of credit. The letter of credit required Meagher to present a draft to Wachovia Bank with a sworn certificate that Levin had defaulted on the note. One of Levin’s obligations was to either pay off and terminate a line of credit guaranteed by Meagher or obtain a release of Meagher no later than April 21, 2003. The line of credit, issued by Wells Fargo, was paid off on April 17th. However, Wells Fargo did not update its computer systems to reflect the payment for several days. A Wells Fargo employee told Meagher that the line of credit was still showing a balance on April 22, 2003. Meagher sent a notice of default to Levin. Levin responded that day with a written statement from the Wells Fargo employee who had received the payment. Meagher presented the letter of credit to Wachovia Bank and sought to draw upon it based on Levin’s default on April 23, 2003. Meagher spoke with a different Wells Fargo employee, who stated the line of credit was still showing a balance and Meagher remained a guarantor until the payment posted to the account. Meagher refused to withdraw his request to draw on the letter of credit, and Levin sued Meagher, seeking an injunction to prevent Meagher from drawing on the letter of credit. The trial court entered a preliminary injunction against Meagher, and Meagher appealed to the Court of Appeals for the First District of California.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Margulies, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.