precedent actually occurred. Response at 6.
The language in the Escrow Agreement supports the conclusions we draw from the Loan Agreement. That language suggests that, if the Bank elected to demand the Assignments and Deeds in Lieu of Foreclosure, it was to deliver the Note (marked "paid") and an executed release to the escrow agent, Chicago Title & Trust ("CT&T"). Menaldi could object within seven days to the release of the assignment by CT&T, but, if he did not object, CT&T was to distribute the various assignments and deeds to the Bank and the Bank's release and cancelled Note to Menaldi. Escrow Agreement at 4. The Bank did not, and has not, executed a release or tendered the Note to Menaldi. Response Exh. I (affidavit of Joseph Stryczek, Senior Escrow Officer at CT&T).
In sum, paragraph six of the Loan Agreement (as interpreted via paragraphs twelve and seventeen) and the Escrow Agreement raise, in the very least, ambiguities that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. Further, Menaldi does not allege that either of the conditions precedent to release actually happened. The motion for summary judgment is denied. It is so ordered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.