BKCAP, LLC v. CAPTEC franchise Trust 2000-1

In action to determine prepayment penalty in loan agreement between parties, Dist. Ct. did not err in setting said penalty based on plaintiffs' interpretation of penalty provision language in loan agreement, even though Ct. of Appeals in prior appeal found that plaintiffs' interpretation was unreasonable, since Dist. Ct. took extrinsic evidence on remand to determine parties' intent. Moreover, fact that defendant's interpretation of penalty provision was also plausible was insufficient to overturn Dist. Ct. judgment. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly consider third-party testimony that defendant's lead negotiator had similar understanding of penalty provision as plaintiffs' lead negotiator where such testimony was offered only as evidence of parties' intent at time of loan closing.