CaseBARRY SEIDMAN v. CHALANT II, LLC
(Record Number 131743)
FromFrom the Circuit Court of Fairfax County; T. Ney, Judge.
CounselJohn E. Prominski, Jr. and Harvey B. Cohen (MILES & STOCKBRIDGE P.C.) for Appellant.
Caroline Petro Gately (VENABLE LLP) for Appellee.
Assignments of Error
- The Trial Court committed reversible error by granting summary judgment to Chalant II against Seidman at trial on Count II of the Amended Complaint (Breach of Guaranty) at the conclusion of Chalant II's case in chief. The Trial Court erred in its reading of the language of a purported amended guaranty by Seidman, which expressly referenced only promissory notes other than the one at issue in this case. Specifically, the Trial Court erred by ruling that the guaranty assured payment of the promissory note at issue here, one that was executed and delivered almost a year after the amended guaranty was executed. The amended guaranty included a clause guaranteeing future notes to Chalant II, however the note in this action was made payable to a different entity, Chalant, LLC ("Chalant"). If the meaning of the amended guaranty was to be decided on the basis of "plain language," the guaranty plainly did not cover the note in this case, and thus judgment should have been entered for Seidman on the guarantee [sic], not Chalant II.
- If liability on the purported amended guaranty could not be rendered based upon "plain language," the Trial Court committed reversible error by hearing Chalant II's oral testimony concerning the amended guaranty but denying Seidman an opportunity to present any evidence at trial in defense of Chalant II's claims.
Assignment of Cross-Error
- The Circuit Court erred in striking the evidence with respect to Plaintiff's fraud claim, as the admissions, exhibits, and testimony were clear and convincing that Seidman used the loan proceeds not for the parties' common business interest but for his personal use.