{
  "id": 11708729,
  "name": "FABER INDUSTRIES, LTD. v. DORI LEEDS WITEK (formerly Dori Leeds), Individually and d/b/a BLIND AMBITIONS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Faber Industries, Ltd. v. Witek",
  "decision_date": "1997-04-15",
  "docket_number": "No. COA96-768",
  "first_page": "86",
  "last_page": "88",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "126 N.C. App. 86"
    }
  ],
  "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": "72 ALR3d 1180",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 ALR3d 582",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "444 S.E.2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "254",
          "parenthetical": "dismissing appellant's appeal from the denial of a summary judgment motion"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N.C. App. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12129791
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "380",
          "parenthetical": "dismissing appellant's appeal from the denial of a summary judgment motion"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/115/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 S.E.2d 800",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1958,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "804-05",
          "parenthetical": "\"DBA\" means \"doing business as\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 N.C. 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621545
      ],
      "year": 1958,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "221",
          "parenthetical": "\"DBA\" means \"doing business as\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/248/0215-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.E.2d 506",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "506",
          "parenthetical": "court cannot ignore or insert words in an unambiguous contract"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 363",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562163
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "365",
          "parenthetical": "court cannot ignore or insert words in an unambiguous contract"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0363-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 S.E.2d 889",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 N.C. 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4697863,
        4701674,
        4704490,
        4701394,
        4696692
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/316/0374-01",
        "/nc/316/0374-05",
        "/nc/316/0374-02",
        "/nc/316/0374-03",
        "/nc/316/0374-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "338 S.E.2d 601",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "602"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.C. App. 716",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523834
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "718"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/78/0716-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 S.E.2d 882",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "883"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 N.C. App. 365",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554152
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "367"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/30/0365-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 349,
    "char_count": 4928,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.733,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36595820837431065
    },
    "sha256": "d91e2ba2643c10b7026dd83e3108109b7e066c2236c243cd0932474b727753f5",
    "simhash": "1:b352d071b676073c",
    "word_count": 821
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:11:14.463583+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WALKER and McGEE concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "FABER INDUSTRIES, LTD. v. DORI LEEDS WITEK (formerly Dori Leeds), Individually and d/b/a BLIND AMBITIONS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nFaber Industries, Ltd. (Faber) filed suit on 18 October 1995 against Dori Leeds Witek (Dori Leeds) seeking to recover monies owed pursuant to a guaranty agreement. Both parties motioned for summary judgment and submitted affidavits and on 18 April 1996 the trial court entered summary judgment for Dori Leeds and denied summary judgment for Faber. Faber appeals from this order.\nThe evidence, considered in the light most favorable to Faber, Brice v. Moore, 30 N.C. App. 365, 367, 226 S.E.2d 882, 883 (1976), shows that on 1 August 1987 Dori Leeds signed a \u201cGuaranty of Credit\u201d (Agreement) with Sun Control Systems guaranteeing \u201cthe prompt payment, when due of every claim of [Sun Control Systems] which may hereafter arise in favor of [Sun Control Systems] against [Dori Leeds dba \u2018Blind Ambitions\u2019].\u201d At the time of the execution of the Agreement, Blind Ambitions was in the business of installing window treatments and installed only \u201cFaber\u201d brand blinds which were purchased from Sun Control Systems. In the spring of 1991 Sun Control Systems sold and assigned its assets, including the Agreement, to Faber. At the time the debt at issue was incurred (in 1994 and 1995), Dori Leeds had no interest in the business, as David and Judith Leeds were the owners of the business and operating under the name of Blind Ambitions. Faber notified Dori Leeds of the debt and its intent to seek collection of that account pursuant to the Agreement. Dori Leeds refused to pay.\nThe issue is whether Dori Leeds is liable, pursuant to the Agreement, to Faber for the debts incurred by David and Judith Leeds doing business as Blind Ambitions.\n\u201cA guaranty of payment is an absolute promise to pay the debt of another if the debt is not paid by the principal debtor.\u201d Amoco Oil Co. v. Griffin, 78 N.C. App. 716, 718, 338 S.E.2d 601, 602, cert. denied, 316 N.C. 374, 342 S.E.2d 889 (1986). \u201cThe enforceability of the guarantor\u2019s promise is determined primarily by the law of contracts.\u201d Id. Where the terms of a guaranty contract are clear and unambiguous, its terms \u201care to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.\u201d Taylor v. Gibbs, 268 N.C. 363, 365, 150 S.E.2d 506, 506 (1966) (court cannot ignore or insert words in an unambiguous contract).\nIn this case, the dispute centers upon the identity of the principal debtor whose debt Dori Leeds was guaranteeing in the Agreement. Faber argues that Dori Leeds guaranteed the debts of Blind Ambitions, without regard to the ownership of the business at the time the debt was incurred. We disagree. The plain and unambiguous language of the Agreement provides that Dori Leeds guaranteed only the debts incurred by Dori Leeds at a time she was doing business as Blind Ambitions. Peirson v. American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 248 N.C. 215, 221, 102 S.E.2d 800, 804-05 (1958) (\u201cDBA\u201d means \u201cdoing business as\u201d). The addition of the words \u201cdba Blind Ambitions\u201d did not expand Dori Leeds\u2019 liability because the use of these words did not create an entity distinct from Dori Leeds. 57 Am. Jur. 2d, Name \u00a7 64 (1988). Thus she did not guarantee the debts of Blind Ambitions and any debt incurred by someone other than Dori Leeds doing business as Blind Ambitions is not an obligation subject to collection under the Agreement. The evidence is undisputed that the debt at issue in this case was incurred by David and Judith Leeds doing business as Blind Ambitions. It follows that Dori Leeds has no obligation under the Agreement to pay this debt and summary judgment was correctly entered dismissing Faber\u2019s claim.\nAffirmed.\nJudges WALKER and McGEE concur.\n. The appeal from the denial of Faber\u2019s motion for summary judgment is not properly before this Court and will not be addressed. Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994) (dismissing appellant\u2019s appeal from the denial of a summary judgment motion).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Spears, Barnes, Baker, Wainio, Brown & Whaley, by Philip A. Mullins TV, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Jordan, Price, Wall, Gray & Jones, L.L.P., by Paul T. Flick and Laura J. Wetsch, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FABER INDUSTRIES, LTD. v. DORI LEEDS WITEK (formerly Dori Leeds), Individually and d/b/a BLIND AMBITIONS\nNo. COA96-768\n(Filed 15 April 1997)\nGuaranty \u00a7 13 (NCI4th)\u2014 guaranty of payment \u2014 inapplicable to subsequent business owners\nA guaranty of payment of the debts of the guarantor \u201cdba Blind Ambitions\u201d did not apply to debts incurred by subsequent owners of the business operating under the name \u201cBlind Ambitions.\u201d\nAm Jur 2d, Guaranty \u00a7\u00a7 26 et seq.\nLiability of lessee\u2019s guarantor or surety beyond the original period fixed by lease. 10 ALR3d 582.\nConflict of laws: what law governs validity and construction of written guaranty. 72 ALR3d 1180.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 18 April 1996 in Durham County Superior Court by Judge Ronald L. Stephens. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 February 1997.\nSpears, Barnes, Baker, Wainio, Brown & Whaley, by Philip A. Mullins TV, for plaintiff-appellant.\nJordan, Price, Wall, Gray & Jones, L.L.P., by Paul T. Flick and Laura J. Wetsch, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0086-01",
  "first_page_order": 124,
  "last_page_order": 126
}