Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantliabilitytrialmotionsummary judgmenttrustbankruptcycorporation

plaintiffdefendantliabilitytrialmotionsummary judgmenttrustcorporation

Related Cases

Holmes v. Graham Mortgage Corporation, 449 S.W.3d 257

Facts

The Holmes Family Interest, Inc. signed a Deed of Trust Note for $1,750,000, secured by twenty residential lots, with Robert H. Holmes, Sr. providing an Unconditional Guaranty. After HFI declared bankruptcy and defaulted on the note, Graham Mortgage foreclosed on the properties, purchasing them for $1,120,000. Graham Mortgage then sued Holmes for the deficiency amount of $912,077.09, leading to motions for summary judgment from both parties.

On July 24, 2007, the Holmes Family Interest, Inc. (HFI) signed a Deed of Trust Note in the principal amount of $1,750,000, secured by twenty residential lots of real property (the Note), and delivered that Note to Graham Mortgage.

Issue

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for Graham Mortgage Corporation and denying Holmes's motions for summary judgment based on the defenses raised?

Rule

A guarantor waives defenses to liability under a guaranty if the guaranty explicitly states such waivers, and the plaintiff is not required to negate the defendant's affirmative defenses in a summary judgment motion.

Analysis

The court found that the waiver clause in the guaranty was broad enough to encompass all defenses raised by Holmes, including those based on the legality and enforceability of the note. The court determined that Holmes's failure to provide evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact on his defenses meant that Graham Mortgage was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

The court found that the waiver clause in the guaranty was broad enough to encompass all defenses raised by Holmes, including those based on the legality and enforceability of the note.

Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Graham Mortgage, concluding that Holmes had waived all defenses to the deficiency claim.

Who won?

Graham Mortgage Corporation prevailed in the case because the court found that Holmes waived his defenses through the terms of the guaranty.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Sexton v. Sewell, 351 Ga.App. 273, 830 S.E.2d 605

Embassy of Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Ugwuonye, 297 F.R.D. 4

Texas State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Independent School Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 103 L.Ed.2d 866, 130 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2921, 49 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 465, 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,834, 57 USLW 4383, 52 Ed. Law Rep. 19

Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 Cal.3d 176, 474 P.2d 689, 89 Cal.Rptr. 737, 44 A.L.R.3d 615

Scholl v. Hartzell, 20 Pa. D. & C.3d 304, 1981 WL 404500, 33 UCC Rep.Serv. 951