Pee Dee State Bank v. National Fiber Corp.
| Decision Date | 25 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 0638,0638 |
| Citation | 287 S.C. 640,340 S.E.2d 569 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEE DEE STATE BANK, Respondent, v. NATIONAL FIBER CORPORATION, Earl M. Walls, and James R. Prosser, Appellants. . Heard |
Steve Wukela, Jr., Florence, for appellants.
T. Furman Brodie, Florence, for respondent.
This is an action on a note and guaranty agreement. The circuit court entered judgment against the guarantor, James R. Prosser, for the amount due on the note. Prosser appeals. We affirm.
The material facts are largely undisputed. In August 1981, Pee Dee State Bank loaned National Fiber Corporation $85,000. As security for the loan, the Bank required Earl M. Walls and Prosser, who were officers of the corporation, to execute guaranty agreements personally guaranteeing payment of the note. The loan was additionally secured by mortgages on real estate owned by Prosser and Walls.
In October 1981, after the Corporation had repaid the first loan, the Bank made a second loan of $85,000. The second loan was never repaid. The Corporation went into bankruptcy in April 1982. Thereafter, the Bank commenced this action against Prosser and Walls on the guaranty agreements. Walls had left the jurisdiction and was never served. The action, therefore, proceeded solely against Prosser.
Prosser maintains he is not liable for the second loan because the guaranty agreement extended to the first loan only. The Bank, on the other hand, claims the guaranty was a continuing guaranty, securing all loans which the Bank might from time to time make to the Corporation. Alternatively, Prosser argues that if the guaranty was a continuing guaranty, he timely revoked it and, therefore, is not liable for the second loan.
In determining the nature of the guarantee, we look first to the written agreement itself. See Warner v. Weader, 280 S.C. 81, 311 S.E.2d 78 (1983); Martin v. Carolina Water Service, Inc., 280 S.C. 235, 312 S.E.2d 556 (Ct.App.1984). Printed at the top of the instrument are the words "UNCONDITIONAL CONTINUING PERSONAL GUARANTY." In the body of the document, Prosser agrees to
... guarantee the full and prompt payment ... of any and all indebtedness ... of said Debtor [National Fiber Corporation] to said [Pee Dee State] Bank ... whether now owing or due, or which may hereafter, from time to time, be owing or due, and howsoever heretofore or hereafter created or arising or evidenced, to the extent of Ninety Thousand Dollars....
This language is plain on its face and leaves no room for the limiting construction Prosser attempts to place on it. We hold that Prosser's written guaranty was a continuing guaranty, not limited to the initial loan.
In support of his argument that the guaranty was intended to cover one loan only, Prosser relies on the language of a "Consideration Agreement" between him and Walls, executed contemporaneously with the guaranty agreement. The Consideration Agreement recites that Prosser and Walls have requested the Bank to make "a loan" to National Fiber Corporation and goes on to state that in consideration of the loan Walls and Prosser are personally guaranteeing the note and are executing mortgages on their property as collateral for the loan. Prosser contends that the words "a loan" in the Consideration Agreement show the parties intended the guaranty agreement to cover only one loan. He also adduces testimony by himself and another witness that they understood the guaranty agreement was for one loan only.
Prosser's argument must be rejected for several reasons. In the first place, where the terms of the written guaranty agreement are clear and complete, extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to its execution cannot be used to contradict, explain, or vary its terms, in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake in its procurement. Ray v. South Carolina National Bank, 281 S.C. 170, 314 S.E.2d 359 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.D. Inc. Of Hilton Head D/b/a Hilton Head Glidden v. A-team Surface Technologies Inc
...with or prior to its execution cannot be used to contradict, explain, or vary its terms. Pee Dee State Bank v. Nat'l Fiber Corp., 287 S.C. 640, 643, 340 S.E.2d 569, 570-71 (Ct. App. 1986). In the present matter, the personal guarantee provides that Lamb is individually responsible for "any ......
-
J.D., Inc. v. A-Team Surface Technologies, Inc.
...guarantee references the credit and sales agreement, which supports the inference that the two documents are to be read together. In Pee Dee State Bank, the court of appeals a guarantee executed as security for an $85, 000 loan to a corporation. 287 S.C. at 641, 340 S.E.2d at 570. The loan ......
-
Campbell v. Bi-Lo, Inc.
...In determining the nature of the Release, we look first to the instrument itself. See Pee Dee State Bank v. National Fiber Corporation, 287 S.C. 640, 340 S.E.2d 569 (Ct.App.1986). In this case, the import of the Release is plain. It recites that Campbell sustained injury to her ankle in an ......
-
Passailaigue v. Kuznik
... ... the Dasinger tract. See Russell v. Wachovia Bank, ... N.A., 353 S.C. 208, 220, 578 S.E.2d 329, 335 ... See ... Pee Dee State Bank v. Nat'l Fiber Corp., 287 S.C ... 640, 642, 340 ... ...