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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT