Opinion ID: 2637904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: [¶ 2] Ms. Schlesinger presents these issues: 1. After undocumented loans were made, whether a written agreement that established the interest rates and due dates of said loans and provided the lender with a reinvestment option was supported by any consideration. 2. After determining that a written agreement was void, did the District Court err in relying upon that agreement to support its judgment that specified the terms for the underlying oral agreements[?] 3. When the only witness to support the Plaintiff's theory regarding the parties' course of conduct was not credible, did the Court err in granting judgment in favor of Plaintiff[?] 4. Whether the District Court erred when it awarded Plaintiff her attorney's fees incurred in relation to her unsuccessful attempt to establish her allegations of fraud and conspiracy. Ms. Woodcock rephrases the issues in the following manner: 1. Did the trial court correctly hold Appellant Mary Beth Schlesinger liable to... Appellee Betty Jane Woodcock for the principal, interest, late penalty fees and collection costs, including attorney's fees, for five unpaid loans which Appellee made to Appellant and her company? A. Did the trial court commit reversible error in determining that an antecedent document entitled Loan Agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration, and thus, did not relieve the Appellant Defendant of her liability for the five unpaid loans? B. Did the trial court commit reversible error in finding the five unpaid loans to be enforceable by Appellee-Plaintiff against Appellant-Defendant, even in the absence of supporting promissory notes? C. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding Appellee-Plaintiff her reasonable attorney's fees and costs of collection?