Justice David Schmidt
Capital Bank, N.A. moved for summary judgment in lieu of bringing a complaint to recover a debt under an instrument for payment of money. Defendants argued the underlying guaranties could not be enforced against them because an extension had effectively terminated the debt they had guaranteed, and because Capital Bank never demanded payment from them. The court disagreed finding the extension’s language could not be read as terminating one loan and originating another one. Outside of moving the maturity date of the note, the loan documents remained unchanged and in full force and effect. The guaranties’ language explicitly made defendants liable. The court concluded that by signing the guaranties, defendants explicitly waived any right to require notice or demand regarding nonpayment by the debtor. The court stated that it did not know, nor have defendants shown any law mandating notifying a guarantor whose principal obligor had defaulted. The court held that Capital Bank had made a prima facie showing that defendants were liable as guarantors for the debt to Capital Bank and defendants failed to raise any triable factual issues. Thus, Capital Bank’s summary judgment motion in lieu of complaint was granted.
