Legal Opinion
Machock v. Fink
Court of Appeals of Utah
Decided October 28, 2004No. 20030301-CAPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
THORNE, Jr., Judge:
T 1 Carl William Fink brings this interlocutory appeal, challenging the trial court's denial of his summary judgment motion on Joseph Machock's claim for payment on a loan guaranty. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
12 The facts relevant to this appeal are not in dispute. In 1998, John Harmer executed a $150,000 promissory note (the Note) to Joseph Machock in exchange for a loan. The debt was secured by a duly recorded trust deed (the Trust Deed) pledging Harmer's home as collateral for the loan. As further security, Carl William Fink executed a personal guaranty (the Guaranty) of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State v. SchofieldUtah Supreme Court · 2002
- Surety Underwriters v. E & C TRUCKING, INC.Utah Supreme Court · 2000
- Thomas v. Color Country ManagementUtah Supreme Court · 2004
- Max L. Wells Trust v. Grand Central Sauna & Hot Tub Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1991
- Sneddon v. GrahamCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1991
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- MacHock v. FinkUtah Supreme Court · 2006
- West Valley City v. CoyleCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2016
- AmericanWest Bank v. KellinCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2015
- In Re HopkinsUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · 2005