Narrative Opinion Summary
Chris Cacioppo appeals a trial court judgment favoring CitiBank, N.A. regarding breach of contract and account stated claims, linked to defaulted obligations on a business credit account in Cacioppo's name. Cacioppo contends that the judgment lacks substantial evidence, asserting that Tera-source, his employer, was the actual account holder and thus primarily responsible for the credit agreement. The appellate court finds that the evidence and reasonable inferences uphold the trial court's ruling, leading to an affirmation of the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).
Legal Issues Addressed
Account Statedsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found sufficient evidence to support the claim that Chris Cacioppo defaulted on obligations under an account stated, which was in his name.
Reasoning: Chris Cacioppo appeals a trial court judgment favoring CitiBank, N.A. regarding breach of contract and account stated claims, linked to defaulted obligations on a business credit account in Cacioppo's name.
Breach of Contractsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court ruled in favor of CitiBank, N.A. on the breach of contract claim against Chris Cacioppo, finding him responsible for the obligations on a business credit account.
Reasoning: Chris Cacioppo appeals a trial court judgment favoring CitiBank, N.A. regarding breach of contract and account stated claims, linked to defaulted obligations on a business credit account in Cacioppo's name.
Primary Responsibility for Credit Agreementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Cacioppo's argument that his employer, Tera-source, was the actual account holder and primarily responsible for the credit agreement was not accepted by the court.
Reasoning: Cacioppo contends that the judgment lacks substantial evidence, asserting that Tera-source, his employer, was the actual account holder and thus primarily responsible for the credit agreement.
Substantial Evidence Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that there was substantial evidence and reasonable inferences to support the trial court's judgment against Cacioppo, upholding the ruling under Rule 84.16(b).
Reasoning: The appellate court finds that the evidence and reasonable inferences uphold the trial court's ruling, leading to an affirmation of the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).