ILNews

7th Circuit upholds ruling in favor of borrowers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A dispute between a lender and subsidiaries created by a restaurant owner to refinance its debt made its way before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for the second time. This time, the judges ruled in favor of the borrowers.

Quality Dining Inc. created subsidiaries BKCAP LLC, GRAYCAP LLC, and SWCAP LLC and made a deal with Captec Financial and GE Capital for 34 separate loans, with each loan secured by a restaurant. Captec assigned 13 of its loans to Captec Franchise Trust 2000-1. The borrowers and lender disagreed about the prepayment requirements for 12 of the loans, landing the parties in court and before the 7th Circuit in 2009.

There is ambiguity in the prepayment provision of the loan agreements, so the judges sent the case back to the District Court for a full trial on the merits. The 7th Circuit found both parties’ arguments as to how to interpret the loan agreement impossible without additional evidence. The District Court then ruled in favor of the borrowers, awarded prejudgment interest, and denied attorney fees for lender Captec Franchise Trust 2000-1.

The lender appealed, claiming the borrowers’ interpretation of the prepayment provision is unreasonable based on the language of the decision issued by the 7th Circuit in the first appeal. The judges did say the borrowers’ interpretation was unreasonable, but the lender’s argument is way off base, wrote Judge John Tinder. The judges didn’t call the lender’s interpretation unreasonable, but they should have, he wrote.

The evidence offered at trial supports the borrowers’ interpretation, and the District Court didn’t err in considering the testimony of the borrowers’ lead negotiator, who testified about an original lenders’ lead negotiator’s construction of the prepayment provision.

There is also no question that the borrowers are entitled to prejudgment interest after September 2009, Tinder wrote, and that the lender is not entitled to attorney fees.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT