Ramirez v. Golden
| Decision Date | 19 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. A96A1924,A96A1924 |
| Citation | 478 S.E.2d 430,223 Ga.App. 610 |
| Parties | , 96 FCDR 4155 RAMIREZ v. GOLDEN et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Wood, Odom & Edge, Gus L. Wood III, Newnan, for appellant.
Rosenzweig, Jones & MacNabb, Joseph P. MacNabb, Newnan, for appellees.
HAROLD R. BANKE, Senior Appellate Judge.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Randall F. Golden and Brenda D. Golden (collectively "Golden") on their suit on a promissory note unconditionally guaranteed by Sonny M. Ramirez. Ramirez challenges that disposition.
The material facts of this action are undisputed. A corporation, 12 Savannah Restaurant, Inc. ("12 Savannah"), purchased an existing restaurant business from Golden. At the closing, 12 Savannah executed a promissory note in favor of Golden in the amount of $225,000 as part of the purchase price. Ramirez, a corporate officer of 12 Savannah, executed an unconditional guaranty of payment and performance obligating only himself to personally pay the indebtedness of 12 Savannah on that promissory note in the event of default. Ramirez agreed that the provisions of the guaranty were applicable to "all renewals, amendments, extensions, consolidations, and modifications of the loan documents." 1 He also agreed that no action taken by Golden, "nor any course of dealing with Borrower [12 Savannah] or any other person, shall release Guarantor's obligations hereunder, affect this Guaranty in any way or afford Guarantor any recourse against Lender [Golden]." In addition to consenting to several waiver clauses, Ramirez agreed to forego "any legal or equitable defenses whatsoever to which Guarantor might otherwise be entitled."
The closing documents included a non-compete clause whereby Golden agreed for a ten-year period to not directly or indirectly "engage in, invest in, or otherwise be connected with the restaurant business" in Coweta County. This covenant specifically authorized its amendment provided that "Seller [Golden] obtains the prior written consent of Buyer [12 Savannah]."
About two years later, Ramirez sold his entire interest in 12 Savannah to the other corporate shareholders. Approximately one year after Ramirez disposed of his ownership, 12 Savannah and Golden modified the original agreement. 12 Savannah agreed to release Golden from the non-compete clause with a few restrictions not germane here, in exchange for obtaining more favorable payment terms. Although Ramirez did not sign the release, it is undisputed that his consent was not required to amend the non-compete agreement.
In the latter part of 1994, Golden began to operate a restaurant known as "Goldens on the Square" located about four blocks from 12 Savannah Restaurant. Several months later, 12 Savannah filed for bankruptcy. After the restaurant defaulted on its payments and after making an unsuccessful demand for payment, Golden filed suit against Ramirez to recover on the unconditional personal guaranty. The trial court granted summary judgment to Golden and awarded Golden the unpaid principal and interest, attorney fees, plus costs. Held:
Where defenses to summary judgment are pierced and a defendant fails to respond with specific facts showing genuine issues of material fact remaining for trial, summary judgment is properly granted. Soni v. Coppedge, 159 Ga.App. 889, 890(1), 285 S.E.2d 604 (1981).
Ramirez contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment by failing to properly consider his statutory defenses under OCGA §§ 10-7-21, 10-7-22. OCGA § 10-7-21 provides that "Any change in the nature or terms of a contract is called a 'novation'; such novation, without the consent of the surety, discharges him." OCGA § 10-7-22 provides that "Any act of the creditor ... which injures the surety or increases his risk or exposes him to greater liability shall discharge him." Claiming that the release constituted a novation and also that the release materially and detrimentally increased his risk, Ramirez asserts both statutory grounds as discharging his obligation as guarantor. OCGA §§ 10-7-21, 10-7-22. Ramirez contends that he would never have signed the guaranty if he had known that Golden could be released without his consent while he was still liable on the note.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Toy King Distributors, Inc.
...waivers of any `legal or equitable discharge' and of any defense based upon an increase in risk." Id. See also Ramirez v. Golden, 223 Ga.App. 610, 478 S.E.2d 430, 431 (1996) guarantor foreclosed from asserting that he was discharged under Section 10-7-22 because he assented in advance to wa......
-
Abdulla v. Klosinski
...been repeatedly enforced in Georgia. See, e.g., Brookside Communities, LLC, 268 Ga.App. at 786, 603 S.E.2d 31;Ramirez v. Golden, 223 Ga.App. 610, 611, 478 S.E.2d 430 (1996). “[A] guarantor may consent in advance to a course of conduct which would otherwise result in his discharge ... [and] ......
-
Fielbon Dev. V. Colony Bank of Houston
...take such actions. Id.; Underwood v. Nations-Banc Real Estate Svc., 221 Ga.App. 351, 352, 471 S.E.2d 291 (1996); Ramirez v. Golden, 223 Ga.App. 610, 611, 478 S.E.2d 430 (1996). The trial court properly granted the bank's motion for directed verdict on Fields' Similarly, these provisions of ......
-
Reece v. Chestatee State Bank
...guaranty agreement at issue here is unambiguous, explicit, and unconditional as to its material terms." Ramirez v. Golden, 223 Ga.App. 610, 611, 478 S.E.2d 430 (1996). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in enforcing the Reeces' obligation under Note Mr. and Mrs. Reece argue that the m......
-
Commercial and Banking Law - Robert A. Weber, Jr.
...v. FDIC, 82 F.3d 1020, 1025 (11th Cir. 1996)). 224. 224 Ga. App. 220, 480 S.E.2d 212 (1997). 225. Id. at 223, 480 S.E.2d at 215. 226. 223 Ga. App. 610, 478 S.E.2d 430 (1996). 227. Id. at 610, 478 s.e.2d at 430. 228. Id. at 610-11, 478 s.e.2d at 430-31 (citing O.C.G.A. Sec. 10-7-21, -22 (199......