In 1935, the California Supreme Court in Bank of America National Trust and Savings Ass’n v. Pendergrass prohibited a borrower from introducing external or parol evidence to demonstrate fraud in connection with an agreement if the evidence directly contradicted the terms of the written agreement. In Pendergrass, the California Supreme Court refused to allow the borrowers to present evidence that loan officers had promised one thing while the agreement said something else, finding that parol evidence could not be used to prove fraud where it directly contradicted the written terms of the agreement. Seventy-five years later, however, the California Supreme Court recently overruled this long-standing jurisprudence in Riverisland Cold Storage v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Ass’n, holding that the rule departed from established California law at the time it was decided and provided a potential shield for wrongdoers. Additionally, the Riverisland Court noted that the holding in Pendergrass was contrary to the language of the statute regarding parol evidence and the laws of other states. Thus, with one fell swoop, the California Supreme Court potentially loosened the litigation flood gates by allowing borrowers to introduce parol evidence of alleged promises, even if those alleged promises directly contradict the terms of a written agreement.
While the impact of the Riverisland decision remains to be seen, lending institutions should take the opportunity to proactively evaluate and modify their workout processes to protect against a potential future Riverisland argument.
Please see full advisory below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Topics: Bank of America v Pendergrass, Borrowers, Default, Fraud, Fraud Exception, Lenders, Loans, Negligent Misrepresentation, Parol Evidence, Rescission, Restructuring, Riverisland
Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, General Business Updates, Finance & Banking Updates, Commercial Real Estate Updates, Residential Real Estate Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Attorney Advertising