Opinion ID: 1718143
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the $2,850,000 judgment against mercantile

Text: Finally we consider, sua sponte, and in the interests of judicial economy the matter of the alternative judgment entered by the trial court against Mercantile. That judgment in favor of KCA I and KCA III was for $2,850,000. [3] The judgment was stated to be effective only in the event, contrary to the earlier finding by the court, that Mercantile prevail in its efforts to collect payment on the capital notes. The court's stated purpose in entering the judgment was to cause Mercantile to refund to the partnerships any sums collected on the partnership notes. This opinion affirms the judgment denying Mercantile any interest in the capital notes and the letters of credit, thereby rendering the alternate judgment unnecessary and surplus. It is to be observed, however, that the alternate judgment failed to take account of the fact that on March 2, 1987, before judgment in this case was entered, Anchor Centre on behalf of the limited partners paid into KCA I and KCA III the stated amounts of the capital notes. Thus, KCA I and KCA III would suffer no loss or damage if the makers of the capital notes were again held liable. If any consequence flowed from that event, the loss would be upon the limited partners who caused the payments to be made to KCA I and KCA III with notice that Mercantile claimed rights to payment of the notes. The alternate judgment against Mercantile serves no purpose in this case but could be a source of future question of potential Mercantile liability. That judgment should therefore be reversed.