Beach Community Bank v. Edward A. Labry, III, et al.
Case Number: W2011-01583-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford
Originating Judge: Judge Kay Spalding Robilio
Date Filed: Friday, June 15, 2012
This case involves personal guaranties on a loan to purchase real estate. The Appellants entered into a partnership for the purpose of buying and selling real estate. The partnership obtained a loan in the amount of $2,611,000.00 to purchase real property located in Florida. The Appellants each signed a personal guaranty on the loan in favor of the Appellee bank. By the express terms of the guaranties, the Appellants guaranteed “up to a principle amount of $795,600.00.” The partnership defaulted on the loan and the bank sued to enforce the guaranties. The Appellants answered that the guaranties were joint and several and that, because they were only 30 percent owners of the partnership, they could only be liable for 30 percent of the amount of the defaulted loan. In addition, the Appellants argued that the bank breached the covenant of good faith in failing to foreclose on the subject property.
The trial court found that, under Florida law, the guaranties were not ambiguous, but were separate guaranties holding each Appellant separately liable for $795,600.00. The trial court also awarded interest on the entire debt. We affirm the trial court’s determination that the guaranties unambiguously require each Appellant to be separately liable for $795,600.00, but hold that the term regarding interest is ambiguous.
Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on this issue and remand to the trial court for the consideration of parole evidence regarding the amount of interest and fees chargeable to the Appellants. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
•••
City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, et al. v. Hargreaves Associates, Inc., et al
Case Number: E2011-01197-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Originating Judge: Judge Jacqueline S. Bolton
Date Filed: Thursday, June 21, 2012
The plaintiffs in this matter, the city and a redevelopment group, filed this action against the defendant entities involved in the design and construction of a large municipal project on the city’s waterfront. Also named as a defendant was the development manager for the project. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the basis that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations found in Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-105. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
•••
City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, et al. v. Hargreaves Associates, Inc., et al - Dissenting
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County
Case Number: E2011-01197-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Originating Judge: Judge Jacqueline S. Bolton
Date Filed: Thursday, June 21, 2012
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s Opinion affirming the Trial Court’s granting of summary judgments to all defendants. In my view, the record in this case does not demonstrate that this case is ripe for summary judgment.
Regarding the claims against River City, the City of Chattanooga/CDRC alleged that:
A) River City was contractually obligated to oversee the waterfront project and was to provide monthly reports regarding same, including any change orders, to the City;
B) River City breached the contract by failing to schedule construction meetings, failing to provide monthly reports to the City, and failing to obtain City approval before approving changes to the design (specifically substitution of mortar and use of fixtures in reflective pools not consistent with the plans);
C) River City acted in excess of its authority; and
D) the City was damaged thereby.
River City filed an Answer, asserting that it kept the City informed regarding the construction progress and changes, and that all reporting requirements were met/exceeded.