Opinion ID: 2604306
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Corporate Designation after Signature

Text: Beck argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because the designation General Manager after his signature made the guaranty agreement ambiguous. He further argues that he intended to sign the guaranty in his corporate capacity and should not be held individually liable. We disagree. We have not decided previously whether a signature followed by a corporate designation on a personal guaranty creates an ambiguity, necessitating consideration of extrinsic evidence. In other jurisdictions, authority is split. See Gary D. Spivey, Annotation, Admissibility of Parol Evidence to Show Whether Guaranty of Corporation's Obligation Was Signed in Officer's Representative or Individual Capacity, 70 A.L.R.3d 1276 (1976). We adopt the line of reasoning that holds: [w]here a writing in the nature of a contract is signed by a person, and contains apt words to bind him personally, the fact that to such signature is added such words as `trustee,' `agent,' `treasurer,' `president,' and the like does not change the character of the person so signing, but is considered as merely descriptive of him.... The mere fact that a person sustains an agency relation to another does not prevent him from becoming personally liable on a contract with a third person, and, if it appears from the contract that he pledged his own credit or bound himself personally, the addition of such words as `president' and the like will be considered as mere descriptio personae. Ricker v. B-W Acceptance Corp., 349 F.2d 892, 894 (10th Cir.1965) (quoting Ellis v. Stone, 21 N.M. 730, 158 P. 480, 483 (1916)); see also 2 Jaeger, Williston on Contracts § 299 at 393-94. The rationale for this approach is sound. Under normal circumstances, a written collateral undertaking given to secure a corporate debt will be rendered meaningless if the primary debtor is found to be the sole party liable thereunder. Dann v. Team Bank, 788 S.W.2d 182, 184 (Tex. App. 1990). The agreement states that Beck personally guarantee[d] ... the payment ... of any obligation of [Chilkoot Lumber] ... whenever [Chilkoot Lumber] shall fail to pay. Unless Beck is individually liable, the guaranty is illusory. Therefore, we hold that the designation General Manager after Beck's signature was merely descriptive language. Beck's subjective intent in signing the guaranty is irrelevant.