Opinion ID: 1060588
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: liability of patricia armentrout

Text: On its verdict form the jury indicated that judgment was against Jay Armentrout and wife, Patricia Armentrout. The Court of Appeals reversed that finding, stating that Mrs. Armentrout was not a party to the note. However the intermediate court observed that even if the note were not at issue, Mrs. Armentrout would not be liable on the debt owed Alexander, as she never expressly promised to pay any portion of the $110,000 obligation. We agree with this analysis. While the jury found Patricia Armentrout liable for the debt, the evidence in the record does not support this verdict. The record demonstrates that Patricia Armentrout was not a party to the partnership nor was she a party to the sale of the partnership interest. As the Court of Appeals observed: The mere presence of Mrs. Armentrout at closing and the appearance of her name on documents associated with the purchase of Alexander's interest are not enough to establish an implied contract holding her responsible for the obligation to Alexander. The proof shows that all negotiations regarding the sale of the partnership interest were between Dan Alexander and Jay Armentrout. We conclude that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the jury's verdict with respect to Patricia Armentrout.