US ON BEHALF OF SMALL BUSINESS v. Andresen, Civ. A. No. 82-0178-H.
Decision Date | 16 April 1984 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 82-0178-H. |
Citation | 583 F. Supp. 1084 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, on Behalf of the SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, Plaintiff, v. Arvid R. ANDRESEN and Margaret M. Andresen and William Maynard Southard and Jean Southard, Defendants. |
Jennie Montgomery, Asst. U.S. Atty., Roanoke, Va., for plaintiff.
William E. Shmidheiser, III, Wharton, Aldhizer & Weaver, Harrisonburg, Va., for defendants.
The United States, on behalf of the Small Business Administration ("SBA"), filed this suit to recover on the defendants' guaranty of a loan, now in default, assigned to the SBA by the original lender, Planters Bank of Bridgewater, Virginia. Two of the four guarantors, William Maynard Southard and his wife Jean, have paid over to the SBA the deficiency remaining after the SBA foreclosed upon the collateral securing the loan; the Southards now assume the position of seeking to recover this paid-over deficiency on the basis of their counterclaim filed in response to the government's complaint. The other guarantors, Arvid and Margaret Andresen, were named in the government's complaint but have not been successfully served.
This case came before the court on March 7, 1984, for a bench trial. The court deferred ruling on the government's motion to dismiss the Southards' counterclaim until all the evidence was taken. Findings of fact and conclusions of law will be contained herein as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
The Southards executed the promissory note for $191,700 at issue here on September 12, 1975. This note was secured by the property of a business, R & S Investments, and was guaranteed by the SBA. As a further inducement for the making of the loan to their business, the Southards executed a guaranty. This guaranty agreement (SBA Form 148 (8-71)) provides in pertinent part:
Subsequently, in 1977, the Southards sold R & S Investments to the other defendants named in this suit, the Andresens. The Andresens signed a similar guaranty for the note. The business experienced financial difficulty. The lender lent the business another $25,000 to provide operating capital; in order to induce this loan, the SBA and the lender agreed, without the Southards' consent, to subordinate the earlier note to this new loan and thus give this new loan a priority secured position. The business with this infusion of new capital nevertheless continued to have problems. The SBA, by this time having taken over the servicing of the note, attempted to work out the Andresens' problems by means of several steps. These measures included stretching out the payment period of the note, deferring payment of the principal, gaining the new financial resource of a Mr. Thomas Tucker, and permitting the sale of the Andresens' golf course property. This golf course property had been additional collateral taken by the lender for the original note when the business was sold to the Andresens. The proceeds from the sale of the golf course were injected into the business in this attempt to salvage R & S Investments as a going concern.
Ultimately, however, the infusion of capital into the business failed to have the intended effect; the business filed for bankruptcy. The Andresens defaulted. The SBA foreclosed on the property securing the note and made its demand for the deficiency on the guaranty signed by the Southards.
The Southards rely on three defenses to relieve them of their obligations under the guaranty they executed. First, they contend that they should be released from their guaranty because of the subordination of the original note to the second note after the sale of the business to the Andresens. Second, the Southards argue that they should be released because of the SBA's release of the golf course property, collateral for the original note. Finally, they assert that the SBA should be barred by its laches in pursuing the Andresens both before and after this suit was filed. These defenses will be addressed seriatim.
The Southards maintain that the SBA's permitting the subordination of the original note and the release of the golf...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Curley
...guaranty only if Small Business Administration willfully caused deterioration, waste, or loss of collateral); United States v. Andresen, 583 F.Supp. 1084, 1086 (W.D. Va.1984) (absent showing of bad faith on part of creditor, language in guaranty waiving defenses based on subordination or re......
-
United States v. H & S REALTY CO.
...intent not to rely on the loan collateral in becoming a guarantor of Key Bank's loan to Hamilton & Son. See United States v. Andresen, 583 F.Supp. 1084 (W.D.Va.1984) (enforcing waiver of SBA guarantor's right to object to lender's subordination and release of collateral; citing Other courts......
-
US on Behalf of Small Business Admin. v. LaFrance, Civ. A. 86-553-CMW.
...teaching may have occurred to date, this Court is unwilling to proceed any further. The Court also observes that United States v. Andresen, 583 F.Supp. 1084 (W.D.Va. 1984) is similar to the present case. In Andresen, the United States filed suit to recover on a guaranty of a loan, in defaul......
-
U.S. v. Mallett, 85-1477
...guaranty language. The courts, however, have uniformly upheld the "waiver-of-defenses" language. See, e.g., United States v. Andresen, 583 F.Supp. 1084 (W.D.Va.1984); United States v. Kyte, 705 F.2d 967, 969 (8th Cir.1983); United States v. Southern Cycle, 567 F.2d 296, 297 (5th Cir.1978); ......