ILNews

Law clear only guarantor's signature needed

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on a guaranty issue today that is "so well-settled" in state law that the judges had difficulty finding recent cases restating it.

Debra Sullivan argued in Grabill Cabinet Co. Inc. v. Debra C. Sullivan, No. 02A03-0908-CV-399, that because Grabill Cabinet Co. didn't also sign a personal guaranty Sullivan had with the company, the guaranty was invalid. Sullivan signed the personal guaranty while she was an employee with Kitchens, Baths, & More, which guaranteed any repayment of debt KBM may have with the cabinet company. When KBM didn't pay on a balance, Grabill tried to collect from Sullivan. Sullivan had since left the company but didn't send Grabill any notice of termination of her personal guaranty.

The trial court granted summary judgment for Sullivan on the issue of enforceability of the guaranty.

The appellate judges disagreed with Sullivan's argument because the Indiana Statute of Frauds requires only that the party against whom the action is brought has to sign the written guaranty.

"Indeed, this seems to be one of those propositions so well-settled in Indiana law that it is difficult to find recent cases restating it," wrote Judge Cale Bradford. "Our Statute of Frauds has existed in substantially the same form, at least as it pertains to guaranties, for well over a century."

There is somewhat of a conflict between Indiana caselaw and the Statute of Frauds, and Sullivan relied on a ruling that required three parties to "execute" a guaranty for it to be valid. But signing a written guaranty isn't necessary for it to be executed and the Statute of Frauds has made it clear only the guarantor's signature is required.

The three Court of Appeals opinions that arguably define a signing requirement onto guaranties conflict with the plain language of the Statute of Frauds and Indiana Supreme Court precedent, the judge continued.

"If the Indiana Supreme Court wishes to graft new signing requirements onto guaranties beyond those mentioned in the Statute of Frauds, it may do so. As yet, however, the Court has not, and we are absolutely bound by its decisions in this regard," Judge Bradford wrote.

The appellate court reversed summary judgment for Sullivan and remanded for entry of summary judgment for Grabill on the issue and for calculation of the company's award.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT