George P. Broadbent, and Plainfield Village, LP v. Fifth Third Bank, 59 N.E.3d 305

Fifth Third Bank made two loans to Plainfield Village, LP in 2006 (Construction: $7,450,000; Additional: $1,307,000). Broadbent, president of Plainfield Village, signed payment guaranties for each loan.
Maturity was extended to June 30, 2014; Broadbent reaffirmed the guaranties in 2011 and 2013.
Section 2 of the guaranties made Broadbent liable upon the lender’s written demand for borrower default; Section 7 limited guarantor liability to 50% of outstanding principal and accrued interest upon extension, and required any reduction in liabilities to be applied first to the portion not guaranteed.
Plainfield Village defaulted in July 2014; Bank sued in August 2014. The property later sold; parties agreed the Bank would be credited with $4.4 million from sale proceeds (Consent Agreement), but reserved rights over how the credit affected Broadbent’s guaranty.
Trial court granted summary judgment for the Bank, finding the guaranties unambiguous and calculating Broadbent’s net liability as $3,134,169.03 (50% of $7,534,169.03 less the portion of the $4.4M credit that first eliminated the non-guaranteed half), plus accrued interest. Broadbent appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bank)	Defendant's Argument (Broadbent)	Held
Whether Section 7 of the guaranties is ambiguous regarding when the "outstanding balance" is determined	Guaranties are unambiguous; Section 2 provides timing (upon lender's written demand) and Section 7 limits amount — extrinsic evidence not allowed	Section 7 is ambiguous because it does not state when "outstanding balance" is determined (various possible times); extrinsic evidence (Broadbent affidavit) shows intended timing after sale/payments applied	Court: Unambiguous. Read Sections 2 and 7 together; balance determined upon lender demand; affidavit inadmissible to create ambiguity.
Whether the $4.4M sale credit was applied correctly in calculating Broadbent’s 50% liability	Section 7 requires any reduction in liabilities to be applied first to the non-guaranteed 50% and only excess reduces guarantor’s 50%; Bank applied credit first to non-guaranteed half, then to guarantor’s half	Credit should reduce the total outstanding balance before splitting, yielding a smaller guarantor obligation	Court: Held for Bank. Applied $7,534,169.03 → split 50/50; $4.4M credit eliminated non-guaranteed half and reduced guarantor half by the excess; resulting liability affirmed.

SPCP Grp., L.L.C. v. Dolson, Inc., 934 N.E.2d 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Hepburn v. Tri-County Bank, 842 N.E.2d 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (contract interpretation — give effect to intent within four corners; do not add terms)
TW Gen. Contracting Servs., Inc. v. First Farmers Bank & Trust, 904 N.E.2d 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (guaranty interpretation governed by contract rules)
Simon Prop. Grp., L.P. v. Mich. Sporting Goods Distribs., Inc., 837 N.E.2d 1058 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (party disagreement alone does not create ambiguity)
Bruno v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 850 N.E.2d 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (guarantor liability depends on guaranty terms; avoid overly narrow or loose interpretation)
Beradi v. Hardware Wholesalers, Inc., 625 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (if ambiguous, extrinsic evidence admissible)
Skrypek v. St. Joseph Valley Bank, 469 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (extrinsic evidence inadmissible where contract is unambiguous)
Riviera Plaza Invs., LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 10 N.E.3d 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (party seeking summary judgment bears initial burden)
Noble Roman’s, Inc. v. Ward, 760 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (contract interpretation requires ascertaining intent from language and circumstances)