You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Pulaski Bank v. Nantucket Partners, L.C., a Missouri Limited Liability Company, and Julian Hess, and Keith Barket

Citations: 428 S.W.3d 729; 2014 WL 1597007; 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 440Docket: ED99060

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; April 22, 2014; Missouri; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves an appeal by Keith Barket against a summary judgment in favor of Pulaski Bank, which sought to enforce a promissory note executed by Nantucket Partners, L.C., backed by personal guaranties from its co-owners, including Barket. Nantucket, involved in real estate, defaulted on a loan initially secured by townhouses and later renewed with additional collateral. Barket contended his guaranty was discharged due to material modifications, specifically the addition of new collateral and an increased interest rate. The trial court, however, affirmed the judgment against Barket, concluding his guaranty was a continuing guaranty, allowing Pulaski to take additional security without notice. The court reasoned that Barket had consented to these modifications through the terms of the guaranty, which was one of payment and performance, authorizing Pulaski to enforce it without first proceeding against other parties or collateral. Pulaski fulfilled the requirements necessary to enforce the guaranty, demonstrating execution, credit extension, and an outstanding debt, leading to the affirmation of summary judgment against Barket, along with additional interest and costs.

Legal Issues Addressed

Consent to Modification

Application: The court determined that Barket had consented to the inclusion of new collateral through the execution of a continuing guaranty, thus negating his claim that the modifications discharged his obligation.

Reasoning: Barket had explicitly consented to the addition of new collateral by executing a continuing guaranty that authorized Pulaski to secure the Note.

Continuing Guaranty

Application: The court held that the guaranty executed by Barket was a continuing guaranty, which allowed Pulaski to take additional security without notice to Barket, and did not discharge his liability.

Reasoning: Barket's guaranty was a continuing guaranty, allowing Pulaski to take additional security without notice.

Material Modification and Discharge of Guaranty

Application: Barket argued that the addition of new collateral materially modified his guaranty, discharging his liability. However, the court found that the guaranty allowed for such actions without affecting Barket's obligations.

Reasoning: Barket argued in his defense that the addition of collateral and interest rate increase were significant changes that nullified his guaranty.

Requirements for Enforcing Guaranty

Application: To enforce the guaranty, Pulaski demonstrated that Barket executed and delivered the guaranty, credit was extended based on it, and a sum was owed, thereby justifying the summary judgment.

Reasoning: For a creditor to recover under a guaranty, they must demonstrate that the guarantor executed and delivered the guaranty, the creditor extended credit based on it, and that a sum is currently owed by the debtor.