Opinion ID: 1790658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Extinguishment of the Guaranties

Text: As an alternative reason for upholding the judgment of the court of appeal, Rheinhard Bieber argues that the trial court was correct in holding the guaranties extinguished. [4] He points to evidence that the bank prepared a new $100,000 guaranty on April 8, 1985 to replace the three sued upon, but that he refused to sign. The court of appeal correctly ruled that the guaranties by their terms are extinguished only by written notice to the bank, which did not occur in the present case. Arguably, the parties by their conduct could have demonstrated in some other manner an intention to discontinue the guaranties. However, even if the bank's seeking a new guaranty and Bieber's refusal to sign one could be construed as evidence of an intent to discontinue the existing guaranties, the discontinuance would not affect Bieber's liability for his son's debts which were already existing. The discontinuance would have relieved Bieber only of liability for future loans. Inasmuch as Larry Bieber's debt sued upon in this case preexisted the presentation of the new guaranty to his father, this argument is unavailing to the guarantor.