Brooks v. Pierson
Respondent James Brooks and Shawn Weizel, the sole shareholders of Hi Tech Traffic, Inc., agreed that Weizel would purchase Brookss interest in the corporation. A written purchase agreement and promissory note were signed by the parties on January 17, 2002, and the note was guaranteed by appellant John Pierson. According to the terms of the promissory note, the purchase price was established on 08/15/01 at a price of $244,000.00, but this principal amount was reduced by two payments made thereafter (one of $10,000 and one of $32,000), leaving a remaining balance of $202,000.00 as of 12/31/01. Although there were other sums paid to Brooks prior to December 31, 2001, the promissory note did not refer to those other payments. When Weizel defaulted, Brooks sued Pierson for the balance due. Following a court trial, judgment was entered in favor of Brooks in the sum of $168,500. Pierson appeals, contending that the court erred when it interpreted the parties agreement so as to exclude the pre-December 31, 2001 payments that were not referenced in the note. Pierson argues such payments should have been applied toward the principal obligation. Court conclude the trial court properly construed the agreement, and Court therefore affirm the judgment.
Comments on Brooks v. Pierson