Court Opinion

ID: 9719069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:41:52.08059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:04.428476
License: Public Domain

FOSHEIM, Retired Justice
(dissenting).
The underlying notes, many of which were co-signed by Laverne, are not disputed. Only the last note for $130,000 is challenged. That note apparently was a renewal of a portion of the existing debt that was then due and owing following extensive discussions between a bank officer and Bob Valentine. As had been the practice in the past with each line of credit, *738BankWest used the proceeds of the $130,-000 note to pay off existing accrued notes except two notes which were separated by agreement of the parties. The record reveals no misrepresentation from Bank to Laverne. In fact, her alleged deceit rests on an absence of any representation to her from Bank. All representations to Laverne came from her son, Bob. He needed her as a co-signer, but was not acting as an agent of Bank.
It appears undisputed that Bank simply followed its previous practice with no deceit towards Laverne. The trial court accordingly should have granted the Bank’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
I am authorized to state that Justice MORGAN joins in this dissent.