Court Opinion

ID: 9695007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:04:00.91267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:07.593970
License: Public Domain

Grant, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. When the promissory notes in question were made, and when payment of the notes was sought by litigation, Neb. U.C.C. § 3-605 (Reissue 1980) provided, in part: “(1) The holder of an instrument may even without consideration discharge any party ... (b) by renouncing his rights by a writing signed and delivered or by surrender of the instrument to the party to be discharged.”
The evidence shows that plaintiff renounced its rights against defendants “by a writing signed and delivered” in a letter to defendants, which letter enclosed defendants’ note stamped “paid.” The instrument in question was surrendered to defendants.
The majority recognizes that subsection (b) of § 3-605 did not specifically state that surrender of an instrument must be intentional in order to effect a discharge. The majority, however, adopts the view of commentators and other courts that “ ‘courts have glossed this section by requiring that surrender of the instrument be accompanied by an intent to discharge the party.’ ” When language in a statute is clear, I do not believe that courts should “gloss” legislative language to reach a goal which courts guess that the Legislature desired.
By adopting Neb. U.C.C. § 3-604 (Reissue 1992) to replace § 3-605 (Reissue 1980), the Legislature recognized that the earlier act did not give lending institutions the protection that the court has afforded such institutions in this case. Section 3-605, prior to adoption of § 3-604 (Reissue 1992), provided (without glossing) that the holder of a note could discharge the maker of the note in various ways that did not require intent. Plaintiff, the holder of the note in question, so acted, without any fraud or inducement by defendants.
To permit a bank to prevail in this litigation removes much certainty in banking transactions. The resulting uncertainty is bad for lenders and borrowers. All parties to promissory notes must now wonder if a bank means that a note is paid just because the bank says that it is paid.
I would reverse the judgment, but if the judgment must be *624affirmed, I also question the amount of the judgment. At the time of trial, apparently, plaintiff contended that the principal sum of $5,717.52 was due. Most of any delay in repayment was caused specifically by plaintiff’s actions in telling defendants that the note was paid. Under those circumstances, when the trial court did not reform or reinstate the note in. question as plaintiff requested, I do not see how plaintiff is entitled to any interest as set out in the note. If judgment must be entered, it should be in the amount of $5,717.52. Granting interest on that judgment, of course, is different from, in effect, granting plaintiff prejudgment interest.