The creditor sued the corporation and the guarantor (collectively “the debtors”) to recover outstanding amounts on a line of credit. The creditor argued for summary judgment, stating that the debtors’ credit account was in default and the guarantor was personally liable. To support its motion, the creditor presented an affidavit from a loan workout specialist and documents showing the corporation’s indebtedness and the guarantor’s personal guarantee. Next, it produced evidence that the guarantor had signed various documents stating her responsibilities under the credit account. In response to the motion for summary judgment, the debtor argued that whether a contract or guarantee had been breached was a fact issue that could not be determined as. A matter of law. Additionally, the guarantor argued that she did not agree or intend to agree to become personally liable. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the creditor. The debtor then argued that summary judgment should not have been granted because there were genuine issues of material fact.
In Crystal Signs, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A,, No. 07-23-00281-CV, 2024 WL 3588580, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 5365 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 30, 2024) (opinion not yet released for publication), the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. The evidence presented supporting the creditor’s motion for summary judgment proved that a valid, enforceable contract existed between the creditor and the debtors and that the debtors breached the contract, resulting in damages to the creditor. The debtors’ arguments against summary judgment were clearly disproven by “uncontroverted evidence” presented by the creditor. Additionally, the debtors had waived the ability to argue that the loan workout specialist’s affidavit was hearsay by failing to object to it in the trial court. Lastly, the guarantor’s argument that her guarantee was invalid because she did not intend to agree to a guarantee was irrelevant because the creditor was not required to prove intention. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
By Sara Williams: [email protected]
Edited By Nura Elhentaty: [email protected]
Edited By Ashley Boyce: [email protected]