Hong Investments, LLC v. Sarsfield
312 Ga. App. 82
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hong Investments and Three Dollar Café entered into a November 27, 2007 lease with Hong as landlord and Three Dollar Café as tenant.
- Sarsfield signed the lease as manager of the tenant entity under a printed name linking to the tenant business.
- On November 28, 2007, Sarsfield signed a personal guaranty to pay the landlord’s rent if the tenant defaults, but the guaranty did not identify the landlord, tenant, or lease.
- Three Dollar Café defaulted; Hong sought to enforce the guaranty.
- Trial court found the guaranty unenforceable for failing to identify the principal debtor or the party guaranteed; Hong appealed.
- The issue is whether contemporaneous writings satisfy the statute of frauds to enforce the guaranty despite lack of explicit cross-reference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the guaranty enforceable under the statute of frauds? | Hong argues contemporaneous writings satisfy the statute. | Sarsfield argues the guaranty fails to identify the principal debtor or the guaranteee. | Yes; guaranty enforceable; contemporaneous writings satisfied statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- LaFarge Bldg. Materials v. Pratt, 307 Ga.App. 767 (2011) (identification requirements under statute of frauds)
- Dabbs v. Key Equip. Finance, 303 Ga.App. 570 (2010) (contemporaneous writings may satisfy S.O.F. when terms exist even without cross-reference)
- Baker v. Jellibeans Inc., 252 Ga. 458 (1984) (documents executed in same transaction deemed contemporaneous)