Roach v. CL WIGINGTON ENTERPRISES, INC., A00A1558.
| Decision Date | 18 September 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. A00A1558.,A00A1558. |
| Parties | ROACH v. C.L. WIGINGTON ENTERPRISES, INC. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles G. Harbin, Jr., Marietta, for appellant.
Jackel, Rainey, Marsh & Busch, James C. Busch, Marietta, Richard A. Hull, Roswell, for appellee.
Douglas Roach appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to C.L. Wigington Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a General Supply Company ("GSC") on its suit against Roach on a personal guaranty. Finding no error, we affirm.
First Custom Builders signed two promissory notes in favor of GSC on September 22, 1997, one for $16,503.64, and one for $15,843.28. Each promissory note was two pages long, signed by First Custom Builders' general partner on each second page. The second half of the second pages of each note contained a "guaranty of payment" immediately following the general partner's signature, and these guaranties were signed by Roach and First Custom Builders' general partner.
GSC sued Roach on the personal guaranties, seeking the entire $16,503.64 on one note and $1,652.75 on the second note, plus ten percent interest as the notes provided. GSC moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion, holding that "the `Guaranty of Payment' incorporated the terms of the `Promissory Note' by reference as `set forth above.'" Roach argues on appeal that the guaranties are invalid because they fail to identify the principal debtor. A promise to answer for the debt of another must be in writing and signed by the party making the guaranty. OCGA § 13-5-30(2). To satisfy the Statute of Frauds, the guaranty must identify the debt, the promisee and the promisor. Schroeder v. Hunter Douglas, Inc., 172 Ga.App. 897, 898(2), 324 S.E.2d 746 (1984).
It is not necessary that the guaranty agreement contain in itself all of the requirements which the Statute of Frauds embraces. If the writing, therefore, refer to any other writing which can be identified completely by this reference, without the aid of parol evidence, then the two or more writings may constitute a compliance with the statute.
(Punctuation omitted.) Id. at 898-899(2), 324 S.E.2d 746.
In the guaranties at issue here, Roach "unconditionally guarantee[d] the payment of the Promissory Note set forth above...." The promissory note specified that the "undersigned," identified as "First Custom Builders" above the signature line, promised to pay specified sums to GSC.
[T]he statute of frauds does not require that all the terms of the contract should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ochs v. Hindman
...have also found that indorsing a promissory note as a guarantor creates a valid guaranty. See, e.g., Roach v. C.L. Wigington Enters., Inc., 246 Ga.App. 36, 539 S.E.2d 543, 544–45 (2000) (finding that a signed “guaranty of payment” on the second page of the promissory note constituted a vali......
-
Elderberry of Weber City, LLC v. Living Centers-Southeast, Inc.
...with the statute.(quoting Turner v. Lorillard Co., 100 Ga. 645, 28 S.E. 383 (1897)); see also Roach v. C.L. Wigington Enters., Inc., 246 Ga.App. 36, 539 S.E.2d 543, 544 (2000). Thus, when a writing specifically incorporates another writing, a court can read the two documents together when d......
-
Haralson v. John Deere Co., No. A03A0583.
...guaranty must sufficiently identify the debt, the principal debtor, the promisee, and the promisor. Id.; Roach v. C.L. Wigington Enterprises, 246 Ga.App. 36, 37, 539 S.E.2d 543 (2000); see Roden Elec. Supply v. Faulkner, 240 Ga.App. 556(1), 524 S.E.2d 247 (1999); Johnson v. Rycroft, 4 Ga.Ap......
-
Lafarge Bldg. Materials Inc. v. Pratt
...frauds. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Schroeder, 172 Ga.App. at 899(2), 324 S.E.2d 746. See Roach v. C.L. Wigington Enterprises, 246 Ga.App. 36, 37, 539 S.E.2d 543 (2000). Applying this rule, we have held that if a guaranty does not incorporate a credit application by reference or us......