|
p0410 REVIEW DENIED In an action regarding a document purporting to guaranty a series of loans, parol evidence was admissible to support the argument that there was a mutual mistake because both parties thought the guarantee document applied only to one loan, or that the lender committed fraud in procuring defendant's signature by misrepresenting that the document applied to only one loan.CitationPACIFIC STATE BANK v GREENE (Endless Guaranty) 110 CA4 375 [See: CCP 1860, 1856; B of A v Pendergrass 4 C2 258; Hess v Ford 27 C4 516, T/AT 4/02]
|
|
