Opinion ID: 1357622
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Roscoe, Sr.

Text: Western's suit against the Roscoe, Srs. was based upon the theory that as co-guarantors [2] under the retail installment contract, the Roscoe, Srs. were liable to contribute a pro rata share of the amount that Western was required to pay under the installment contract. This is a correct theory of law. Where two or more persons [e.g., Western and Roscoe, Srs.] have bound themselves as coguarantors, each of them, as between themselves, is required to bear a ratable proportion of the amount for which they are liable under the contract of guaranty. In the event one has paid more than his share of the sum, he is entitled to demand contribution from the other or others and may maintain suit to enforce the right. 38 Am.Jur.2d Guaranty § 128 at 1137 (1968) (footnotes omitted). See also Restatement of Security § 149 (1941). To establish its right to contribution under this theory, Western produced evidence to show its status as guarantor, Roscoe, Srs.' status as guarantors, and that Western had made payments under the installment contract in an amount greater than its pro rata share. Thus, there was sufficient evidence in the record to establish a prima facie right to contribution from Roscoe, Sr. to Western. Again, therefore, the trial judge erred when he originally directed a verdict in favor of Roscoe, Sr., and the subsequent grant of a new trial was correct.