LoRusso v. Schaible
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2436 (2011)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Lawrence Schaible (defendant) anticipated taking out bank loans to help finance his business. Schaible signed a cross-collateralization agreement personally guaranteeing repayment (the guarantee) on these anticipated loans. Schaible backed up his guarantee by mortgaging his house to the bank. Then, Schaible took out two loans, both of which referred back to the guarantee. Afterward, Schaible engaged in two additional bank transactions, a third loan secured by Schaible’s commercial property, and a commercial lease. The accompanying documents described these transactions as integrated agreements, made no reference to Schaible’s guarantee, and contained their own cross-collateralization clauses. Schaible subsequently declared bankruptcy. Frank and Judith LoRusso (plaintiffs), the parents of Schaible’s business partner, bought the third loan and the lease from the bank and sued to foreclose on Schaible’s house. The trial-level New Jersey Superior Court granted summary judgment for Schaible. The LoRussos appealed to the court’s Appellate Division.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.