Opinion
April 15, 1975.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Berenbaum, Berenbaum & Susman, Stephen T. Susman, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Brenman, Sobol & Baum, Richard M. Kranzler, Denver, for defendants-appellants.
SILVERSTEIN, Chief Judge.
In this action to obtain payment of four promissory notes, defendants appeal from a judgment entered, after a trial to the court, in favor of plaintiff for the principal and interest prayed for in the complaint. We affirm.
Plaintiff is assignee of Dream House Acres, Inc., the payee of the notes. Defendants admitted execution of the notes and that no money was paid on the obligation evidenced thereby. However, they asserted, Inter alia, that there was no consideration for the notes. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that there was consideration.
Defendant Mel-Bern Construction Co., Inc., was owned solely by the individual defendants Robin and Kupetz. In 1962 and 1963 Dream House sold seventy-six unimproved lots in a subdivision to Mel- Bern. The lots were to be paid for out of the proceeds of the subsequent sale by Mel-Bern of the lots and houses which were to be built on the lots. This plan was followed until June 1964 when Mel-Bern ceased doing business because of financial difficulties. At that time most of the lots remained unimproved, some had been sold and some had houses still under construction. Mel-Bern was indebted to Dream House for some of the lots which had been sold and for other obligations.
In order to resolve the problems created by the failure of Mel-Bern to perform, Mel-Bern reconveyed, in 1964, a total of 49 unimproved lots and executed an agreement tendered by Dream House, which showed that defendants' indebtedness to Dream House on the date of the document, October 1, 1964, was $12,152.96. As provided in the agreement, Mel-Bern and the individual defendants executed and delivered a note in that amount to Dream House. The agreement also outlined certain continuing transactions between the parties. Attached to the agreement was an exhibit setting forth the debits and credits which established the amount due Dream House. The agreement was not signed by Dream House.
Defendants contend that the agreement was an offer from defendants to Dream House and that since the offer was not accepted there was no consideration for the note. The evidence does not support this contention. The agreement was offered by Dream House and accepted by defendants. The note evidenced a settlement of various outstanding obligations and represented the then balance due after part of the total debt was forgiven when Dream House accepted a partial reconveyance of lots originally purchased by Mel-Bern. The evidence establishes adequate benefits to the defendants, constituting consideration for the note. See Western Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. National Homes Corp., 167 Colo. 93, 445 P.2d 892; Luby v. Jefferson County Bank, 28 Colo.App. 441, 476 P.2d 292.
The record supports the finding of the trial court that the other three notes, which were based on separate transactions, were supported by consideration; therefore, that finding will not be disturbed. Rutherford v. Scarborough, 28 Colo.App. 352, 472 P.2d 721.
Judgment affirmed.
COYTE and VanCISE, JJ., concur.