Germantown Mfg. Co. v. Rawlinson

After Robert Rawlinson (defendant) was fired for embezzling over $327,000 from Germantown Manufacturing (plaintiff), a company representative visited the Rawlinsons' home and had Joan Rawlinson (defendant) sign two judgment notes -- one for $160,000, which the representative implied would fully satisfy the debt, and a second based on an unseen affidavit that later specified $212,113.21, including over $45,000 in interest -- while telling the Rawlinsons the company had no interest in criminal prosecution if they cooperated. The lower court reopened Joan's judgment on the second note based on fraud, misrepresentation, duress, and lack of accountability for the amount, and Germantown appealed.