Facts

Plaintiffs Joseph Ghadir and Parvin Ghadir sued for breach of an oral modification of a written promissory note seeking $711,050, plus interest, attorney fees and costs. At all times, the monies advanced were to Namco Capital Group, and all payments were received from Namco Capital Group.

The claim is based upon an April 1997 term promissory note that expired in one year, signed by Mousa Namvar, Eilel Namvar, and Ezri Namvar. The case was settled as to Eilel Namvar and could not proceed against Ezri Namvar, as he was in bankruptcy.

Plaintiffs claimed the parties orally modified the note in 1998, converting the term note to a demand note obligating payment upon demand.

Result

Defense verdict was entered on Dec. 20, 2012. Attorney fees ($183,670) and costs ($13,165) were awarded on Feb. 14, 2013.

Other Information

The Court found that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof on the issue of whether there was an oral modification. The Court also found that even if there had been an oral modification, certain claims were not in existence at the time of the original promissory note, or were in favor of entities not named as plaintiffs. The loan also reached a zero balance in 2006 and 2007, and there were no discussions between Joseph Ghadir and Mousa Namvar about monies funded thereafter. The Court found that even had there been a discussion about an oral modification as suggested by Joseph Ghadir, the terms were so indefinite as to be unenforceable. The Court also determined the alleged oral modification violated the statute of frauds, at Civil Code section 1624 (a)(7), and was barred by the statute of limitations, pursuant to CCP section 339(a). FILING DATE: Nov. 10, 2009.