Ron Guillot v. Hal Chaistopher Salter

Golden, Colorado civil litigation lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a breach of contract theory.



Salter was the CEO and founder of Allegro Multimedia, Inc., which — when facing financial difficulties and trying to secure additional funding — borrowed $30,000 from Guillot through a promissory note.



Salter executed the note on Allegro's behalf in 2011, and it was due one year later. Allegro continued to face

business struggles after the repayment period ended, so it attempted to restructure the note, which remained unpaid. Salter and Guillot agreed to modify the loan in late 2013, reducing the interest rate and restructuring the repayment terms. The loan modification agreement required Salter to personally sign the agreement and secure it with a life insurance policy on himself. Salter did not appear or file an answer brief in this appeal.



Guillot was not Allegro's only creditor, the company had approximately 300 investors and $10 million in investments.

Allegro eventually failed, went out of business, and defaulted on Guillot's loan.



Although Guillot made annual collection attempts, Salter failed to make payments on the restructured loan. However, he

continued making payments on the life insurance policy securing the note for the policy's ten-year term. During those ten years, he and his wife both faced serious health concerns but survived. However, when the time came to renew the life insurance policy in 2023, Salter refused because of the expected dramatic increase in its cost.



Guillot then filed the underlying lawsuit in this case, seeking to recover on the promissory note. Salter, appearing pro se, filed an answer, which did not raise laches as an affirmative defense. Almost two months later, Salter filed a second answer without obtaining leave of court. That answer briefly mentioned laches as an affirmative defense. Following a bench trial, the court found that Salter breached his contract to repay the loan but applied the doctrine of laches and entered judgment against Guillot.

Reversed