Opinion ID: 1597749
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: When did the statute of limitations begin to run against Mr. Harrison as guarantor?

Text: ¶ 38. Trilogy correctly asserts that since Harrison had signed a personal guarantee, he was only secondarily liable for the debt, and therefore, the statute of limitation did not begin to run against him personally until it was clear the Harrison Enterprises was unable to pay. Trilogy points to the fact that Harrison admitted in his Rule 30(b)(6) deposition that his liability arose only if Harrison Enterprises was unable to pay. Harrison incorrectly asserts that his indebtedness arose at the same time the invoices became due; thus, his personal liability ran concurrent with that of Harrison Enterprises and is subject to the same statute of limitations. ¶ 39. This Court has held that a guarantor is secondarily liable to the creditor on his contract and his liability is fixed only by the happening of the prescribed conditions at a time after the contract itself is made. Associates Commercial Corp. v. Parker Used Trucks, Inc., 601 So.2d 398, 402 (Miss.1992) (citing Brent v. National Bank of Commerce, 258 So.2d 430, 434 (Miss.1972)). ¶ 40. Harrison seems to be claiming that the prescribed conditions that would make him primarily liable for the debts of Harrison Enterprises are the same as for the Harrison Enterprises itself, namely, the due dates of the invoices. His interpretation of the law should send chills down the spine of every guarantor in this state. Obviously, the prescribed condition that would make him personally liable is Harrison Enterprises becoming unable to pay. Since this condition could only occur after the due dates of the invoices, it is metaphysically impossible for the statutes of limitation to run concurrently. In his deposition, Harrison admitted that he understood his personal guarantee made him secondarily liable and this liability only attached after Harrison Enterprises became unable to pay. To claim otherwise now, once again, would seem to be disingenuous at the least. ¶ 41. Clearly, the statute of limitations on Harrison, as personal guarantor of Harrison Enterprises, did not begin to run until at least after the date of the letter. Therefore, Trilogy's complaint against Harrison was filed well within the statute of limitations period.