Wayne Dalton Corp. v. Acme Doors, Inc., No. 1507

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtCURETON; SANDERS, C.J., and GARDNER
Citation394 S.E.2d 5,302 S.C. 93
PartiesWAYNE DALTON CORPORATION, Respondent, v. ACME DOORS, INC., Richter P. Morsch, Carolyn M. Morsch, William C. Harrelson and Georgia Mae B. Harrelson, Defendants, of whom William C. Harrelson and Georgia Mae B. Harrelson are Appellants, and Acme Doors, Inc., Richter P. Morsch, Carolyn M. Morsch are Respondents. Appeal of William C. HARRELSON and Georgia Mae B. Harrelson. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 1507
Decision Date18 April 1990

Page 5

394 S.E.2d 5
302 S.C. 93
WAYNE DALTON CORPORATION, Respondent,
v.
ACME DOORS, INC., Richter P. Morsch, Carolyn M. Morsch,
William C. Harrelson and Georgia Mae B. Harrelson,
Defendants,
of whom William C. Harrelson and Georgia Mae B. Harrelson
are Appellants,
and
Acme Doors, Inc., Richter P. Morsch, Carolyn M. Morsch are
Respondents.
Appeal of William C. HARRELSON and Georgia Mae B. Harrelson.
No. 1507.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard April 18, 1990.
Decided May 29, 1990.

[302 S.C. 94] Grover C. Seaton, III, Moncks Corner, for appellants.

Page 6

Jack Landis, Moncks Corner, and G. Daniel Bowling, Charleston, for respondents.

CURETON, Judge:

William and Georgia Harrelson appeal the order of the circuit court finding them liable on their personal guaranties for a debt of a corporation. The Harrelsons assert the circuit court erred in reversing the decision of the master. We reverse the circuit court.

Wayne Dalton is a manufacturer of overhead garage doors. Acme Doors, Inc., is one of its South Carolina customers. Wayne Dalton Corporation instituted this suit to recover on a promissory note executed on behalf of Acme Doors, Inc., by its president, Richter Morsch. The note was personally guaranteed by Morsch. His wife, Carolyn Morsch, had also executed a guaranty for the debts of the company.

The dispute on appeal concerns guaranties executed by William and Georgia Harrelson in 1978. At that time they were the owners and corporate officers of Acme Doors. Their guaranties covered debts owed by the company to Wayne Dalton. Acme was sold by the Harrelsons to the Morsches in 1983. 1 Richter Morsch operated the company after the sale and by October of 1984 the company owed Wayne Dalton over two hundred thousand dollars on an open account. Wayne Dalton notified Morsch that a resolution of the debt was necessary[302 S.C. 95] and also notified the Harrelsons that it considered them responsible for the debt based upon their guaranties. Ultimately, Acme Doors, Inc. executed a note in July 1985 which consolidated the amount due on the open account. The note called for installment payments with interest. Acme Doors failed to pay the note and this suit ensued. The Morsches and Harrelsons were named as defendants based upon their respective guaranties.

The case was referred to the master for entry of final judgment. The master issued an order finding Acme Doors, Inc., indebted to Wayne Dalton in the sum of $142,092.12. He held the Morsches liable for the debt based upon their guaranties. However, the master found the Harrelsons were not liable to Wayne Dalton because (1) the sale of the company voided the guaranty and (2) novation extinguished their guaranties. The case was appealed to the circuit court. The judge reversed the master. He held the sale of the company did not automatically void the guaranty and there was no evidence of novation.

This is an action at law. On appeal we are required to look at the master's findings of fact to determine if there is any evidence which reasonably supports them. May v. Hopkinson, 289 S.C. 549, 347 S.E.2d 508 (Ct.App.1986) (appeal from entry of final judgment by master).

A guaranty is a promise to pay a debt if the person liable in the first instance fails to make payment. McGee v. F.W. Poe Mfg. Co., 176...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Moore v. Weinberg, No. 4209.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 20, 2007
    ...of a new obligation between the parties with the intent to extinguish the old obligation." Wayne Dalton Corp. v. Acme Doors, Inc., 302 S.C. 93, 96, 394 S.E.2d 5, 7 (Ct.App.1990) (citing Ophuls & Hill, Inc. v. Carolina Ice & Fuel Co., 160 S.C. 441, 158 S.E. 824 (1931)). There must be an inte......
  • Parker v. Shecut, No. 3167.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 22, 2000
    ...as a novation, but a novation substitutes a new obligation for an old one which is extinguished. Wayne Dalton Corp. v. Acme Doors, Inc., 302 S.C. 93, 394 S.E.2d 5 (Ct.App.1990). Here, the Addendum modified the Agreement; it did not extinguish 4. Whether or not Bo and Win should pay the esta......
  • Masters v. KOL, Inc., Appellate Case No. 2017-002259
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 22, 2020
    ...a new obligation between the parties with the intent to extinguish the old obligation." (quoting Wayne Dalton Corp. v. Acme Doors, Inc. , 302 S.C. 93, 96, 394 S.E.2d 5, 7 (Ct. App. 1990) )), aff'd , 383 S.C. 583, 681 S.E.2d 875 (2009). The June purchase order, like the April purchase order,......
  • Wellman, Inc. v. Square D Co., No. 4018.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 21, 2005
    ...to extinguish the old obligation. The burden of proving novation is on the party asserting it." Wayne Dalton Corp. v. Acme Doors, Inc., 302 S.C. 93, 96, 394 S.E.2d 5, 7 (Ct.App.1990) (citation omitted). "The circumstances attending the transaction alleged to be a novation must show the inte......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Moore v. Weinberg, No. 4209.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 20, 2007
    ...of a new obligation between the parties with the intent to extinguish the old obligation." Wayne Dalton Corp. v. Acme Doors, Inc., 302 S.C. 93, 96, 394 S.E.2d 5, 7 (Ct.App.1990) (citing Ophuls & Hill, Inc. v. Carolina Ice & Fuel Co., 160 S.C. 441, 158 S.E. 824 (1931)). There must be an inte......
  • Parker v. Shecut, No. 3167.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 22, 2000
    ...as a novation, but a novation substitutes a new obligation for an old one which is extinguished. Wayne Dalton Corp. v. Acme Doors, Inc., 302 S.C. 93, 394 S.E.2d 5 (Ct.App.1990). Here, the Addendum modified the Agreement; it did not extinguish 4. Whether or not Bo and Win should pay the esta......
  • Masters v. KOL, Inc., Appellate Case No. 2017-002259
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 22, 2020
    ...a new obligation between the parties with the intent to extinguish the old obligation." (quoting Wayne Dalton Corp. v. Acme Doors, Inc. , 302 S.C. 93, 96, 394 S.E.2d 5, 7 (Ct. App. 1990) )), aff'd , 383 S.C. 583, 681 S.E.2d 875 (2009). The June purchase order, like the April purchase order,......
  • Wellman, Inc. v. Square D Co., No. 4018.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 21, 2005
    ...to extinguish the old obligation. The burden of proving novation is on the party asserting it." Wayne Dalton Corp. v. Acme Doors, Inc., 302 S.C. 93, 96, 394 S.E.2d 5, 7 (Ct.App.1990) (citation omitted). "The circumstances attending the transaction alleged to be a novation must show the inte......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT