 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coblentz v. Rorem6/14/2005
strument indicating discharge.' RCW 62A.3-604(a)(i). Similarly, one may agree not to sue, or otherwise renounce rights against the party, by a signed writing. RCW 62A.3-604(a)(ii).
Dora never destroyed, altered, or surrendered the note, and she never renounced her rights against Rorem. Nevertheless, in her letter to Rorem, Dora expressly rejected one of the terms of the promissory note, i.e., the date of payment. Specifically, she stated: 'At no time did I agree to accept a promissory note for the $4,802.10 remaining. . . . I hereby request, and respectfully demand the immediate payment of the $4,802.10 you stated you owe me in your letter of January 10, 2000.' Exh. 5 (emphasis added). Her attorney also demanded immediate payment. Rorem argues that under Wallace v. Kuehner, 111 Wn. App. 809, 812, 46 P.3d 823 (2002), this request constituted an unequivocal rejection of the note sufficient to discharge him of the obligation to pay on it.
In Kuehner, 'it was understood' that Wallace would help the defendants, his daughter, and son-in-law financially as they moved to Seattle and started a new business. Kuehner, 111 Wn. App. at 812. Accordingly, the defendants prepared a promissory note for $100,000, and delivered it to him. Kuehner, 111 Wn. App. at 812. Later, he told the defendants that the note 'wasn't worth the paper it was written on' unless they had the money to repay it. Kuehner, 111 Wn. App. at 812. His daughter testified that he said he threw the note away. Kuehner, 111 Wn. App. at 112 n.3. Both defendants testified that they believed he had rejected the note when he told them it was worthless. Kuehner, 111 Wn. App. at 816.
Wallace eventually advanced the defendants $100,000 to forestall foreclosure on their business, but not until after he made the statement about the note's worth. Kuehner, 111 Wn. App. at 812. Furthermore, when Wallace gave the defendants the $100,000, he told his daughter that if she lost the money, it would come out of her inheritance. Kuehner, 111 Wn. App. at 817. Notably, Wallace did not challenge on appeal the finding that he told his daughter he threw the note away; this court found it to be a verity. Kuehner, 111 Wn. App. at 817. In light of these statements, we held that Wallace unequivocally rejected the note before he gave the money to the defendants; accordingly, no contract was formed and the note was unenforceable. The court said it was 'at most an advance on {his daughter's} inheritance.' Kuehner, 111 Wn. App. at 818.
Here, Rorem does not argue that he believed that Dora was releasing him from his obligation on the note. In fact, his correspondence with Dora's attorney confirms that he was fully aware that she was not releasing him from his obligations on it. And Dora did not destroy or alter the note. In addition, there was no evidence that Rorem or Dora contemplated another arrangement (e.g., something similar to Wallace's advance on his daughter's inheritance). We hold that Dora's demand for immediate payment of the $4,802.10 did not discharge Rorem's obligation.
Dora is entitled to attorney fees pursuant to RAP 18 in an amount to be set by a commissioner of this court.
We affirm.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Armstrong, J.
We concur:
Morgan, A.C.J.
Houghton, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|