Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

TIM FENTON, Respondent, v. GREGORY RUKAVINA, Appellant.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Gregory Rukavina, and respondent, Tim Fenton, entered into an oral partnership agreement for operating a trucking business. In order to purchase a truck and dump trailer, the parties signed a promissory note as makers/borrowers for $35,000. The note was secured by the truck and dump trailer, with Fenton also listed on the note as the lender. When the partnership dissolved, appellant Rukavina kept possession of the truck and orally agreed to make the payments. After default, respondent Fenton sold the truck and sought and obtained in a bench trial a deficiency judgment against appellant. The appellant claimed that: 1) the note was invalid because the parties failed to endorse; 2) the sale of the truck was not accomplished in a commercially reasonable manner; and 3) the trial court's decision not to credit appellant for the $12,000 in note payments was in error. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FENTON v. RUKAVINA
(Mar 5, 2002)