Court Opinion

ID: 9761580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:46:19.901676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:24.674211
License: Public Domain

McDONALD, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion in one basic aspect. The majority alludes to substantial evidence in the record “which a fact finder could infer that Ms. McGhee had consented to additional renewals after the time the note was executed.” It is my conclusion that not only is there a lack of *136substantial evidence in this regard, there is no evidence at all of Ms. McGhee’s consent beyond the one renewal permitted in the note and agreement.
It is my opinion that the trial court erred by its failure to direct a verdict for Ms. McGhee, and the majority’s solution to the issue only compounds the error.
Pertinent to the issue of consent is KRS 355.3-118(6) which provides: “Unless otherwise specified consent to extension authorizes a single extension for not longer than the original period.” (Emphasis added.) An additional but critical factor in my analysis of this issue is the principle set forth in Coombs v. Beneficial Finance Co., Ky.App., 549 S.W.2d 327 (1977), that the bank, as the preparer of the note, “must therefore be bound strictly by the language thereof.” (Emphasis added.) Keeping the statute and case law in mind, with having reviewed the transcript of the trial, I conclude there is no evidence that Ms. McGhee ever consented to the extensions beyond the first one. In fact, Ms. McGhee was coerced to pay the interest up to date by Harvey Hensley. Hensley, the bank’s president, was in a bind because the principal obligor of the loan was his first cousin, Leslie Hensley. With the loan in a default condition and the federal auditors scheduled to arrive for inspection, it was critically necessary that the interest be paid to date upon the note for which Ms. McGhee acquiesced. This transaction renewed the note for an additional six months, the one and only consented-to renewal.
Concerning the additional extension, Harvey Hensley testified that although Leslie Hensley signed a new note, numerous attempts to get Ms. McGhee to sign a second note were unsuccessful. She refused on every occasion. From this scenario, the majority infers that Ms. McGhee gave her consent to the other extension.
It is beyond my grasp as to why the case is any longer legally maintainable against Ms. McGhee. It is my opinion that the case should be remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment dismissing the bank’s complaint against Ms. McGhee.