Opinion ID: 168807
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hicks and Jaeckle, $350,000, jointly; and

Text: (4) David Hicks and D. Paul Davis, $100,000 each, individually. W ith only a few hours left to close the transaction, Choppin faxed a promissory note to Hicks. To Hicks’ surprise, however, the terms of the note diverged from the oral agreement, making Hicks and Jaeckle jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the loan. Choppin assured Hicks that his liability would not extend beyond the $2 million previously agreed-upon. He further explained that BOA needed Hicks’ signature to satisfy internal BOA processing requirements until Jaeckle’s collateral had been perfected. Hicks and Jaeckle signed the note as drafted at the eleventh hour, on December 31, 1999. The note contained the following integration provision: NO TICE OF FINA L AG REEM ENT. THIS WRITTEN PR OM ISSO RY N O TE R EPRESENTS THE FINAL AGREEM ENT BETW EEN TH E PARTIES AND M AY NO T BE CO NTR AD ICTED -4- B Y EV ID EN CE O F PR IO R, CONTEM PORANEOUS, OR SUBSEQUENT ORAL AGREEM ENTS OF THE PARTIES. THERE A RE N O U N WRITTEN ORAL AGREEM ENTS BETW EEN THE PARTIES. The note also contained a provision that required binding arbitration of: A N Y CO N TR OV ER SY O R CLAIM BETW EEN OR AM ONG THE PARTIES H ERETO INCLUDING BU T N OT LIM ITED TO TH OSE AR ISING OU T OF OR RELA TING TO TH IS INSTRU M ENT, AG REEM ENT O R D OC UM ENT O R A NY RELATED IN STR UM EN TS, A G REEM ENTS OR DOCUM ENTS, INCLUDING AN Y C LAIM BA SED ON O R A RISING FROM AN ALLEG ED TORT[.] The bridge loan to SCN worked as anticipated: SCN paid off the remainder of the BOA revolver, and restructured its business as Health Grades.com, Inc. Hicks paid the $2 million he had agreed to pay under the note, and David Hicks and Davis each paid off their $100,000 obligations. Yet not all w as smooth sailing – Jaeckle did not pay his obligation under the note prior to the due date, and neither Hicks nor Jaeckle paid the $350,000 joint obligation when it became due. The note w as renewed twice on essentially the same terms, eventually reflecting a remaining balance of $1 million and a maturity date of September 30, 2000. 1 Hicks claims that Choppin assured him each time that he was not actually liable for the $1 million attributed to Jaeckle, and that his name w ould be removed as soon as BOA had perfected its interest in Jaeckle’s collateral. 1 Further references to “the note” in this decision may encompass the original and renewal notes, as required by context. -5-