Redmond v. Harrelson
| Decision Date | 03 February 1978 |
| Citation | 355 So.2d 356 |
| Parties | Thomas H. REDMOND and Ruth Ann Redmond v. Lowell HARRELSON. SC 2328. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John W. Parker, Mobile, for appellants.
Emmett R. Cox and Robert H. Allen, Mobile, for appellee.
Appellee Lowell Harrelson filed suit against appellants Ruth Ann and Thomas H. Redmond seeking damages on a $50,000.00 promissory note executed by the Redmonds to Harrelson. The Redmonds' answer contained a general denial, an affirmative defense of failure of consideration on the note, a demand for a jury trial, and a counterclaim against Harrelson for damages for breach of an agreement executed between the parties. The jury demand and counterclaim were struck one day prior to trial by the trial court with the express stipulation that the Redmonds could later assert this claim in an independent action. Judgment was rendered against the Redmonds in the amount of $58,823.00. This appeal followed.
Harrelson and Mr. Redmond are partners in S.G.H., Ltd., a Georgia general partnership. S.G.H. owns the Pascagoula Motel in Jackson County, Mississippi, which was formerly operated under a Rodeway Inns franchise. Mr. Redmond, who also serves as president of Cornith Leasing Corporation, sought to purchase the Pascagoula Motel from Harrelson. On March 5, 1976 Harrelson and Mr. Redmond contemporaneously executed four documents as follows: (1) Agreement; (2) Lease Agreement; (3) Promissory Note; and (4) Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement.
In the document titled "Agreement," Harrelson agreed to sell the Pascagoula Motel to Mr. Redmond and to indemnify Mr. Redmond for obligations and liabilities arising out of the operations of the Pascagoula Motel prior to March 8, 1976. Mr. Redmond agreed to seek financing to purchase the motel.
The second document, "Lease Agreement," provided for leasing Pascagoula Motel to Cornith Leasing Corporation and was signed by Mr. Redmond as president of the corporation. The term of the lease was from March 8, 1976, through the last day of August, 1976.
The "Promissory Note" executed March 5, 1976, is the subject of this appeal. Consideration for the note is recited on its face as being "for value received." The first installment was due April 8, 1976.
The fourth document in evidence, the "Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement," stated that a suit was pending in Mobile Circuit Court by Harrelson against Mr. Redmond and also a counterclaim by Mr. Redmond against Harrelson. It further recited that in consideration of settlement of that original suit and counterclaim, Mr. Redmond had paid $10,000.00 in cash to Harrelson and Mr. and Mrs. Redmond had executed and delivered to Harrelson a $50,000.00 promissory note.
Briefly stated, these four documents are interrelated as follows:
(a) The Agreement refers to the Note and the Lease, stating that default under the provisions of either instrument by Mr. Redmond or his corporation results in forfeiture of Mr. Redmond's interests in S.G.H.
(b) The Lease states that the Lessor could terminate the lease if Mr. Redmond defaulted in the payment of installments due on the Note.
(c) The Note makes reference to the Lease and recites that if Cornith Leasing Corporation fails to abide by the conditions of the Lease, the Note becomes due and payable.
(d) The Release refers to the Note and states that a $50,000.00 note and $10,000.00 in cash were given as consideration for the Release.
As of the date of execution of these four documents, $15,000.00 was owed to Rodeway Inns by Harrelson's company, Southern Hosts Inns, on the franchise for Pascagoula Motel. Harrelson had been negotiating for several months to terminate this Rodeway Inn franchise. Mr. Redmond knew of these negotiations but not of the $15,000.00 arrearage. He became aware of the debt through a letter from Rodeway Inns on April 12, 1976. Mr. Redmond testified at trial that this delinquency on the franchise prevented him from acquiring adequate financing to purchase the Pascagoula Motel. The first installment on the Note became due April 8, 1976, and was not made by the Redmonds.
The Redmonds sought at trial to show by parol evidence that the Agreement was a part of the consideration for the Note. They also attempted to prove that Harrelson breached his warranty in the Agreement by failing to indemnify the Redmonds for the $15,000.00 arrearage on the motel franchise and that this breach constituted a failure or partial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. Bankston Motor Homes, Inc.
...cannot be varied or contradicted by parol evidence." Slaton v. Shell, 398 So. 2d 311, 312 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981); Redmond v. Harrelson, 355 So. 2d 356, 358 (Ala. 1978). Thus, because this contract expressly provided that it contained all ofthe terms and conditions of the agreement, and that ......
-
EX PARTE THE WATER WORKS & SEWER BD.
...for breach of an indemnification agreement executed contemporaneously with the note was a compulsory counterclaim. Redmond v. Harrelson, 355 So.2d 356 (Ala.1978). Furthermore, the majority position in federal courts is that a creditor's claim for default on a debt is a compulsory countercla......
-
Durham v. Cohen
...its June 18, 2018, judgment should be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial on all the parties' claims.In Redmond v. Harrelson, 355 So.2d 356 (Ala. 1978), Lowell Harrelson sued Thomas Redmond and Ruth Ann Redmond on a $50,000 promissory note. The parties had executed four separat......
-
Sloan v. Cunningham
...1133 (Ala. 1986). Promissory Notes, like contracts, cannot be varied or contradicted by admission of parol evidence. Redmond v. Harrelson, 355 So.2d 356, 358 (Ala. 1978). Equally true, however, is that "[p]arol evidence is always admissible to show that an instrument is void or to show a la......