Court Opinion

ID: 9585644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:02:30.352022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:46.802275
License: Public Domain

Judge WEBB
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority because I believe that on the evidence before the court, the bank took the guaranty in good faith. In the light most favorable to the defendant, the evidence shows the guaranty was given to defendant’s husband who later returned it to the bank properly executed by defendant. The majority concludes the bank should have done something more such as call the defendant or her attorney to confirm that she meant for the guaranty to be delivered. In this I believe the majority is mistaken. We have held that when a bank delivers a loan guaranty to a customer, who later returns the guaranty properly executed, the bank cannot rely on the guaranty without further inquiry. In this I believe we have unduly restricted commercial transactions in this state.
Defendant executed the guaranty and it was witnessed by her attorney. The attorney then carried it to his office where it was available for defendant’s husband to take it to the bank. If one of two innocent parties must suffer from the delivery, I do not believe it should be the bank. I believe Oil Co. v. Welborn, 20 N.C. App. 681, 202 S.E. 2d 618, cert. denied, 285 N.C. 235, 204 S.E. 2d 25 (1974) governs and I vote to affirm.