Court Opinion

ID: 9718780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:33:37.312815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:00:42.242723
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Presiding Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority because the trial court could permissibly have determined there was a failure of proof at the trial. For instance, the bank offered no testimony to establish either that the note executed December 1, 1983 concerned only the pre-existing debt contemplated in the original mortgage or that the guaranty executed December 8 was executed in response to and as a part of the transaction of December 1. Indeed the only witness called had been in his position only a few months and had no direct knowledge of any of the transactions involved.