Mundaca Investment Corp. v. Febba
New Hampshire Supreme Court
727 A.2d 990 (1999)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Doris Febba, Thomas Scurfield, and Linda Kendall (defendants) served as trustees for the L.T.D. Realty Trust (the trust). The defendants purchased two condominium units for the trust. To finance the purchase, the defendants executed two promissory notes, which were secured by two mortgages and payable to the order of Dartmouth Savings Bank (Dartmouth). The trust was not identified in the promissory notes, but the notes stated that the notes were secured by the mortgages. The mortgages identified the trust as the borrower. The defendants signed their names to the promissory notes and wrote “trustee” after each of their signatures. Mundaca Investment Corporation (Mundaca) (plaintiff) acquired the promissory notes, which had gone into default. Mundaca brought suit against the defendants personally for the amount due on the notes. The trial court granted summary judgment for Mundaca, holding that (1) the defendants’ signatures did not show that they were signing in a representative capacity, and (2) the defendants had failed to prove that Dartmouth did not intend to hold them personally liable on the notes. The defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brock, C.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.
