334 Ga. App. 97
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Janice Winterboer, mother and full-time caregiver of her severely incapacitated adult son Joshua, signed Floyd Medical Center registration/consent forms when Joshua received emergency inpatient care in April and June 2011.
- Winterboer had no formal guardianship or power of attorney but paid Joshua’s expenses from trust/annuity funds after his childhood accident.
- Floyd sued Joshua and Winterboer for unpaid medical bills, alleging Winterboer personally guaranteed payment by signing the hospital registration forms.
- Joshua died before final adjudication; the claim against him was dismissed, leaving Floyd’s claim against Winterboer.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Floyd and denied Winterboer’s motion, awarding Floyd over $243,000. Winterboer appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the registration forms were ambiguous and, read as a whole, supported Winterboer’s signing in a representative (agent) capacity, not as a personal guarantor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Winterboer) | Defendant's Argument (Floyd) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether signing the registration form created a personal guaranty by Winterboer | Form language does not make her personally liable; she signed as a person acting for the patient (agent) and checked box stating patient could not transact business | Broad guaranty language (“the undersigned guarantees payment…”) makes any signatory personally liable for patient’s charges | Reversed trial court: form is ambiguous; signature lines and checkboxes show she signed as agent, not personally liable |
| Whether contract language is ambiguous and how to construe it | Ambiguity exists because guarantee language conflicts with signature/representative fields; construing against drafter favors non-drafter | Argues plain broad guaranty language controls regardless of signature labels | Court: ambiguous; apply in pari materia and rule against drafter; summary judgment for Floyd was erroneous |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the guaranty claim | Material ambiguity precludes summary judgment for Floyd; genuine issue as to contractual meaning | Claimed no genuine issue—language unambiguously imposed personal guaranty | Court: de novo review; ambiguity means summary judgment for Floyd improper |
| Need to reach other defenses (statute of frauds; adhesion/unconscionability) | Those issues argued but unnecessary if primary ground resolves appeal | Sought judgment on guaranty; did not press other issues after reversal ground | Court did not address these additional arguments because reversal on primary issue was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Blake v. KES, Inc., 329 Ga. App. 742 (appellate summary judgment standard on de novo review)
- Atlanta Emergency Servs., LLC v. Clark, 328 Ga. App. 9 (contract construction is a question of law; three-step analysis)
- Bd. of Comm’rs of Crisp Cty. v. City Comm’rs of the City of Cordele, 315 Ga. App. 696 (contract interpretation principles)
- Paul v. Paul, 235 Ga. 382 (whole-contract construction and intent of the parties)
- Reichman v. Southern Ear, Nose & Throat Surgeons, P.C., 266 Ga. App. 696 (ambiguous contract construed against drafter)