Donal R. Schmidt, Jr v. Colin Richardson

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 13, 2014·No. 05-13-00206-CV·Published

Opinion

fiduciar

states I

I Appellees rely upon a provision in the Notes as pan of their argument that "there is no mquitentent that any of these insiders provide any notice whatsoever to Sun River before taking action." However. the provision states only that “no notices are required to be given by Payee to Maker in the event of default and acceleration." (Emphasis added.) This waiver of a notice requirement for acceleration is in keeping with

=.section 6(2l's focus of future payments and acceleration during the pendeney of the six-month payment period. Acceleration is no longer an issue under the Notes: all payments are past due1

[David Lewis]

DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE

. {David Lewis!

'D—Amfiv'iém "'

JUSTICE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Donal R. Schmidt, Jr v. Colin Richardson, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Donal R. Schmidt, Jr v. Colin Richardson (Donal R. Schmidt, Jr v. Colin Richardson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.