Indian Village Shopping Center Inv. Co. v. Kroger Co.
Decision Date | 28 May 1993 |
Docket Number | CA-CV,No. 2,2 |
Citation | 854 P.2d 155,175 Ariz. 122 |
Parties | INDIAN VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER INVESTMENT COMPANY, a California limited partnership, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. The KROGER COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, Defendant/Appellee. 93-0071. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Indian Village Shopping Center Investment Company (Indian Village) appeals from an adverse summary judgment on its complaint to enforce a guaranty executed by The Kroger Company (Kroger). We view the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted. United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn, 167 Ariz. 191, 805 P.2d 1012 (App.1990). Summary judgment is proper when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ariz.R.Civ.P. 56(c), 16 A.R.S.; Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 802 P.2d 1000 (1990).
Indian Village is the successor to the landlord's interest in a 20-year lease executed in May 1973 with SupeRx California Drug Stores, Inc. (SupeRx). 1 The lease was for 13,350 square feet in a shopping center located at the intersection of 16th Street and Indian School Road in Phoenix, Arizona. In January 1974, Kroger executed a guaranty in which it agreed to pay the rent if SupeRx defaulted, which occurred in May 1990.
The lease was modified four times; however, Kroger only consented to the first three modifications. It is the fourth modification that gives rise to this dispute. In that modification, Indian Village and SupeRx agreed to reduce the size of the leased area by 5,200 square feet, or 39 percent, which resulted in a corresponding reduction of SupeRx's rent and the loss of its frontage on Indian School Road. The issue thus presented is whether the fourth modification of the lease, made without Kroger's consent, discharged it from its guaranty.
The issue presented is one of first impression in Arizona. In such circumstances, the law of the Restatement is usually applied. Fort Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly, 166 Ariz. 96, 800 P.2d 962 (1990). Here, we apply the Restatement of Security (1941), notwithstanding Indian Village's argument to the contrary. It argues that the Restatement of Security (Restatement) is inapplicable because this case involves a guaranty and the Restatement involves suretyship. This argument is refuted by the Restatement itself. Comment g to § 82 plainly states:
The term "guaranty" is used in this Restatement as a synonym for suretyship. "Guarantor" is used as a synonym for surety.
Indian Village claims, however, that its argument is supported by the following principle of law from McClellan Mortgage Co. v. Storey, 146 Ariz. 185, 188, 704 P.2d 826, 829 (App.1985): "[A] 'guarantor' would never be a 'surety' under the normal meaning of these terms." In Storey, appellant argued that guarantors were not covered by Arizona's suretyship statutes, A.R.S. §§ 12-1641 through 12-1646. This argument was categorically rejected by the court. It first observed that § 12-1646 explicitly states that "[t]he remedy provided in this article for sureties extends to endorsers, guarantors, drawers of bills which have been accepted, and every other suretyship...." (Emphasis supplied.) The court then found that the phrase "and every other suretyship" meant that "the statute applies to all types of relationships in which one person agrees to answer for the debt of another, not just those specifically listed in the statute." Storey, 146 Ariz. at 188, 704 P.2d at 829. It is thus apparent that the principle of law upon which Indian Village relies was neither controlling in Storey, nor is it here.
We now turn to the primary issue of whether Kroger was discharged from its guaranty as a result of the fourth modification of the lease made without its consent. Restatement § 128 sets forth the circumstances in which a discharge will occur. It provides:
Where, without the surety's consent, the principal and the creditor modify their contract otherwise than by extension of time of payment
(a) the surety, other than a compensated surety, is discharged unless the modification is of a sort that can only be beneficial to the surety, and
(b) the compensated surety is
(i) discharged if the modification materially increases his risk, and
(ii) not discharged if the risk is not materially increased, but his obligation is reduced to the extent of loss due to the modification.
It is at once apparent that for purposes of discharge, § 128 draws a distinction between compensated and non-compensated sureties. That distinction is governed by comment i to § 82, which states:
The term 'compensated surety' is used in [this] Restatement ... to mean a person who engages in the business of executing surety contracts for a compensation called a premium, .... Other sureties, whether strictly gratuitous or whether receiving some pecuniary advantage, whose surety contracts are occasional and incidental to other business, are not included among compensated sureties.
(Emphasis supplied.) Because this record is devoid of any evidence that Kroger was paid a "premium" for its guaranty, we find that it is a non-compensated or gratuitous surety, rather than a compensated surety.
Indian Village nevertheless contends that Kroger is a compensated surety because it was SupeRx's parent company when the original lease was executed and therefore benefited from an allegedly reduced rent SupeRx paid as a result of the guaranty. In support of this contention, Indian Village cites Old National Bank of Washington v. Seattle Smashers Corp., 36 Wash.App. 688, 676 P.2d 1034 (1984), a case we find unpersuasive. There, the court simply assumed, without discussion,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Desarrollo Immobiliario Y Negocios Indus. De Alta Tech. De Hermosillo, S.A. De C.V. v. Kader Holdings Co.
...Sonora and Arizona law. For this assertion, Kader relies on Sonora Civil Code Section 3147 and Indian Village Shopping Center Investment Co. v. Kroger Co., 175 Ariz. 122, 854 P.2d 155 (App.1993). Section 3147 permits modifications by the debtor and creditor as long as the guarantor is not h......
-
Kaufman v. Geico Indem. Co.
...In re Estate of Parker, 217 Ariz. 563, 569, 177 P.3d 305, 311 (Ct. App. 2008) (citing Indian Vill. Shopping Ctr. Inv. Co. v. Kroger Co., 175 Ariz. 122, 125, 854 P.2d 155, 158 (App. 1993) (declining to hold that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees "simply becaus......
-
Kesselman v. National Bank of Arizona
...We consider the facts in the light most favorable to the parties opposing summary judgment. Indian Village Shopping Ctr. Inv. Co. v. Kroger Co., 175 Ariz. 122, 854 P.2d 155 (App.1993). In 1993, Buddy Wood, a principal of Lucido-Wood Development Company, Inc., sought financing from National ......
-
Data Sales Co., Inc. v. Diamond Z Mfg.
...found that the lease assignment modified Diamond Z's guaranty obligations to its detriment, without its consent or knowledge, and under Indian Village,1 "Diamond Z would be discharged from liability on the guaranty." Nevertheless, the trial court found that the express language of the guara......
-
CASES AND STATUTES
...Sch. Dist. No. 24 v. Carlstrom, 151 N.W.2d 784 (Minn. 1967)................................. 4.3-19Indian Village Shopping v. Kroger Co., 175 Ariz. 122, 854 P.2d 155 (Ct. App. 1993)............. 4.3-17, 31Indiana Ins. Co. v. DeZutti, 408 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. 1980)....................................
-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
...21 Ariz. 1, 184 P. 992 (1919).................................................. 101, 109Indian Village Shopping Center v. Kroger Co., 175 Ariz. 122, 854 P.2d 155 (App. 1993)................. 166, 199Industrial Comm’n v. Meddock, 65 Ariz. 324, 180 P.2d 580 (1947)...................................
-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
...5-117In the Matter of the Naarden Trust, 195 Ariz. 526, 990 P.2d 1085 (App. 1999) 2-63Indian Village Shopping Ctr. Inv. Co. v. Kroger, 175 Ariz. 122, 854 P.2d 155 (App. 1993) 11-4Int’l Harvester Co. v. Fuoss, 157 Ariz. 378, 758 P.2d 649 (App. 1988)............... 11-5Int’l Trust Co. v. Deck......
-
4.3.5 Comparison of Suretyship and Insurance
...Ct. App. 1982).[135] SNM Corp. v. Bank of N. Carolina, 254 S.E. 2d, 274 (N.C. App. 1979).[136] Indian Village Shopping v. Kroger Co., 175 Ariz. 122, 854 P.2d 155 (Ct. App. 1993).[137] Lasseter v. Becker, 26 Ariz. 224, 229, 224 P. 810 (1924); see also Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Lentz, 40 Ar......