In the case of In re Couchot,the court held that Kathy Couchot:
A) is liable to Star Bank only for the consideration she directly received from the loan.
B) was not liable for the note, since there was a material alteration.
C) must pay the note since she signed as an accommodation party.
D) fraudulently altered the note.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court held that Kathy Couchot must pay the note since she signed as an accommodation party. This means that she signed the note as a favor or accommodation to another party, and therefore assumed liability for the debt. However, she is only liable to the extent of the consideration she received from the loan, which means she is not responsible for the entire amount of the debt.

In the Case of in Re Couchot,the Court Held That