AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In September 1999, Luz Corona provided a revolving line of credit to Coronas Concrete Company, Inc., owned by her brothers (the Brothers) and their wives (the Wives), under a formal agreement. Despite the agreement specifying a borrowing limit and repayment terms, the actual monies lent exceeded this limit. No repayments were made between September 2000 and November 2008. Subsequent payments, including a notable $20,000 payment in November 2008, were made by successor companies owned by the Brothers. In 2009, an oral settlement agreement for $100,000 in monthly installments was agreed upon but not adhered to by the appellants (paras 3-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (Luz Corona): Argued that the debts were revived due to partial payments made after the statute of limitations had expired and that appellants admitted liability and willingness to repay, thus reviving Luz's claims (para 8).
• Appellants (The Brothers and the Wives): Contended that Luz's claims were barred by the statutes of limitations, arguing that the terms of the Agreement, Land Loan, and CD Loan were unenforceable due to the expiration of the applicable statutes of limitations (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether payments made after the expiration of the statute of limitations revived the debts.
• Whether the appellants' liability is limited due to the business entity that borrowed the funds no longer existing or because one brother arranged the loans independently of the others.
• The extent of the appellants' liability and the amount owed under the revived debts (paras 1-2, 11).

Disposition

• The district court's determination of revival was reversed in part and affirmed in part.
• The district court's rulings regarding the appellants' arguments on liability limitations were affirmed.
• The enforceability of the Wives' personal guaranties and their liability as borrowers for the Land Loan was reversed. The award of attorney fees and costs was also reversed to the extent they were associated with the enforcement of the Land Loan. The judgment was affirmed on all other issues and remanded for further proceedings regarding the fees associated with the Land Loan (paras 41-42).

Reasons

• Per MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, M. MONICA ZAMORA concurring):
  The court found substantial evidence supporting the revival of the debts for some appellants but not others, based on partial payments and admissions of liability made after the statute of limitations had expired (paras 14-25).
  It was determined that the district court correctly found the appellants individually liable for the debts, as they had guaranteed the loans, and that the loans were revived through payments and admissions of liability (paras 29-34).
  The court concluded that the appellants' liability was not limited to the original amount specified in the Agreement or to the amount of the settlement agreement, as the appellants had consented to modifications of the Agreement and failed to fully perform the accord (paras 35-40).