{
  "id": 11919945,
  "name": "NATIONSBANK OF NORTH CAROLINA, N.A., Plaintiff v. WILLIAM E. BROWN and THOMAS F. DARDEN, II, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Nationsbank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1995-04-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 9410SC680",
  "first_page": "576",
  "last_page": "580",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 N.C. App. 576"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "439 S.E.2d 166",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "168"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N.C. App. 645",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523396
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "649"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/112/0645-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 6-21.2",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(2)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 413,
    "char_count": 7784,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.727,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7490394227617131
    },
    "sha256": "4bf8d26dcbdd99ef37238c09ffda6ca988c99e1c28a164b4c9d8a6a1c1ee2232",
    "simhash": "1:ef3b94a9d5a7d6b4",
    "word_count": 1227
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:31.897721+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges COZORT and LEWIS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "NATIONSBANK OF NORTH CAROLINA, N.A., Plaintiff v. WILLIAM E. BROWN and THOMAS F. DARDEN, II, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nIn this action by NationsBank of North Carolina, N.A. (plaintiff) to recover on a guaranty agreement, William E. Brown and Thomas F. Darden, II (defendants), appeal from the trial court\u2019s order granting summary judgment for the plaintiff and order denying defendants\u2019 motion to strike, defendants\u2019 motion to amend answer and counterclaims, and defendants\u2019 motion to compel discovery.\nThe evidence shows that, on 11 September 1989, defendants, founders of Arrowhead Masonry, Inc. (Arrowhead), signed a personal guaranty for $250,000, which guaranteed a promissory note, signed by Arrowhead, in return for plaintiff\u2019s extension of a line of credit to Arrowhead, up to $250,000. Defendants\u2019 guaranty was \u201can inducement to [plaintiff] to extend credit to\u201d Arrowhead, and defendants \u201cabsolutely and unconditionally guarantee [d] to [plaintiff] the due and punctual payment of [the note] ... together with interest, as and when the same become due and payable.\u201d This guaranty further provided that defendants would \u201creimburse [plaintiff] for all costs and expenses (including attorneys\u2019 fees) incurred by [plaintiff] in connection with the enforcement of [the] guaranty.\u201d On that same day, plaintiff sent a letter to Arrowhead which outlined \u201cthe additional terms and conditions under which [plaintiff was] willing to extend a $250,000 Line of Credit to Arrowhead.\u201d That letter provides:\n[Plaintiff] is willing to advance 85% of the figure derived by subtracting Accumulated Retainage from Net Trade Receivables (Total Accounts Receivables less Reserve for Losses). The company shall send to the Bank on a month-end basis an Accounts Receivable Borrowing Base Certificate as attached. Any overad-vances under this Borrowing Base approach will be reviewed on an individual occurrence basis and must be approved by the Bank.\nThe letter does not mention defendants\u2019 guaranty, but the letter was \u201cAcknowledged and Accepted\u201d by defendants on behalf of Arrowhead and individually.\nOn 31 March 1993, plaintiff\u2019s sued defendants on the guaranty agreement and demanded $85,266.76, interest and cost, including attorneys\u2019 fees. Defendants assert estoppel and waiver as affirmative defenses and allege that plaintiff breached the guaranty agreement by making advances to Arrowhead in excess of the 85% amount provided for in the 11 September 1989 letter. Defendants filed counterclaims making the same claims. On 20 December 1993, the trial court granted plaintiff\u2019s summary judgment motion, awarding plaintiff\nthe principal amount of $79,913.40, plus accrued but unpaid interest at the annual rate of the Prime Rate of NationsBank, plus one percent (1%), from and after February 1, 1992, until paid in full, plus the costs of this action, including attorneys\u2019 fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 6-21.2(2) of Fifteen Percent (15%) of the outstanding balance of principal and interest at the time of the institution of this action.\nThe issue presented is whether the plaintiff violated the provisions of the 11 September 1989 letter.\nDefendants do not dispute that they are guarantors of payment on Arrowhead\u2019s promissory note, nor that Arrowhead is in default because it did not make the last two payments due on the note. They argue, however, that they should be relieved of any liability because the plaintiff deviated from the terms of its 11 September 1989 letter, which stated plaintiff would advance only 85% of Arrowhead\u2019s net accounts receivable and request monthly \u201cBorrowing Base Certificates\u201d from Arrowhead. The plaintiff contends it did not deviate from the terms of the 11 September letter. We agree with the plaintiff.\nIt is a well accepted principle of law that \u201ca guarantor will be released from his undertaking by any material alteration,\u201d m\u00e1de without his consent, of the original obligation or duty to which the guaranty relates. 38 C.J.S. Guaranty \u00a7 72 (1943); First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. McLamb, 112 N.C. App. 645, 649, 439 S.E.2d 166, 168 (1993). In this case, there is no dispute that the plaintiff agreed to \u201cadvance 85% of the figure derived by subtracting Accumulated Retainage from Net Trade Receivables.\u201d There is also no dispute that on several occasions the plaintiff advanced funds to Arrowhead in excess of the 85% figure. The question is whether these advances amount to a material deviation from the original agreement upon which the guaranty was based. They do not. The letter of 11 September 1989 authorized, but did not require plaintiff to advance monies beyond the 85% figure. In fact the letter specifically states that any \u201coveradvances . . . must be approved by the Bank.\u201d\nFurthermore, we reject the defendants\u2019 argument that plaintiff materially deviated from the terms of the 11 September letter in that it \u201cdid not obtain any Borrowing Base Certificates from Arrowhead.\u201d The letter did not place the responsibility of supplying these certificates on the plaintiff. Arrowhead was given the responsibility to \u201csend [these certificates] to the Bank on a month-end basis.\u201d In any event, the certificates were merely a form to be used by the plaintiff to compute the 85% figure and if they were willing to make advances without regard to that figure, they were permitted to do so. In no event could the liability of the defendants exceed $250,000, the amount of the guaranty. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not deviate from the original agreement upon which the guaranty was based and summary judgment for the plaintiff on its claim was proper. For the same reasons, summary judgment for the plaintiff on the defendants\u2019 counterclaims was proper.\nWe have reviewed the several other assignments of error asserted by the defendants and determine that they do not require reversal or modification of the orders entered by the trial court. It is, however, apparent from this record and the plaintiff agrees, that the order of the trial court inadvertently directs that interest accrue \u201cfrom and after February 1, 1992.\u201d On remand the order must be amended to reflect the correct date of February 1, 1993, the date on which Arrowhead defaulted.\nAffirmed and remanded.\nJudges COZORT and LEWIS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jemigan, L.L.P., by Robin K. Vinson, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Durham Wyche Story Whitley & Henderson, L.L.R, by Ashley H. Story, Claire B. Casey, and Jane Flowers Finch, for defendant-appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NATIONSBANK OF NORTH CAROLINA, N.A., Plaintiff v. WILLIAM E. BROWN and THOMAS F. DARDEN, II, Defendants\nNo. 9410SC680\n(Filed 18 April 1995)\nGuaranty \u00a7 17 (NCI4th)\u2014 guarantors of payment of note\u2014 default \u2014 deviation from terms of guaranty\nThe trial court did not err by granting summary judgment for plaintiff in an action to enforce a guaranty where defendants claimed that they should be relieved of any liability because plaintiff deviated from the terms of the guaranty by making advances in excess of an 85% figure derived by subtracting accumulated retainage from net trade receivables. The letter setting out additional terms to the agreement authorized, but did not require plaintiff to advance monies beyond the 85% figure. Furthermore, plaintiff did not materially deviate from the terms of the letter by not obtaining Borrowing Base Certificates because the letter did not place the. responsibility of supplying those certificates on plaintiff, and, in any event, the certificates were merely a form to be used by plaintiff to compute the 85% figure. Plaintiff did not deviate from the original agreement upon which the guaranty was based and summary judgment for plaintiff on its claim was proper.\nAm Jur 2d, Guaranty \u00a7\u00a7 79 et seq.\nAppeal by defendants from orders entered 20 December 1993 in Wake County Superior Court by Judge Coy E. Brewer, Jr. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 March 1995.\nSmith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jemigan, L.L.P., by Robin K. Vinson, for plaintiff-appellee.\nDurham Wyche Story Whitley & Henderson, L.L.R, by Ashley H. Story, Claire B. Casey, and Jane Flowers Finch, for defendant-appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0576-01",
  "first_page_order": 608,
  "last_page_order": 612
}