WELLS FARGO PRACTICE FINANCE v. Norfleet, Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2012 – Google Scholar.
“WFPF asserts that Irsenia Norfleet is liable for Norfleet DDS PC’s obligations under the Master Agreement and Lease Schedule. The secured guaranty agreement, like the other agreements at issue, is governed by California law. (See Marsh Aff. Ex. E.) Irsenia Norfleet does not contest that the secured guaranty is a valid agreement. By its terms, it establishes her liability for Norfleet DDS PC’s obligations under the Lease Schedule and Master Agreement. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2807, 2787; River Bank Am. v. Diller, 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 790, 797 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (“[G]uaranty contracts are construed according to the same rules as those used for other contracts, with a view to ascertaining the intent of the parties.”). Irsenia Norfleet does not contest that she has failed to pay the amounts owed by Norfleet DDS PC. Therefore Irsenia Norfleet, like Norfleet DDS PC, is in default under the Master Agreement.See Cent. Bldg., LLC v. Cooper, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 212, 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (“When a guaranty agreement incorporates another contract, the two documents are read together and construed fairly and reasonably as a whole according to the intention of the parties.” (citations and quotations omitted)). WFPF’s motion for summary judgment as to Count II will be granted.
Because Norfleet DDS PC and Irsenia Norfleet are in default under the Master Agreement, WFPF is entitled to payment of the full amount owed under the Lease Schedule, including service fees and interest and attorney’s fees and costs. (See Marsh Aff. Ex. A ¶¶ 16-18.)”
Comment: think long and hard before personally guaranteeing a business obligation or someone else’s student loans. Such guarantees are enforceable.
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
fedcivilprocedure 