Court Opinion

ID: 9473866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:41:44.184837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:46.532444
License: Public Domain

TIMBERS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Since the federal six-year statute of limitations had not run when the FDIC commenced the instant action, I would reverse the order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings according to law.
28 U.S.C. § 2415(a) (1982) in relevant part provides:
“That in the event of later partial payment or written acknowledgment of debt, the right of action shall be deemed to accrue again at the time of each such payment or acknowledgment”.
The statute of limitations is not tolled by this section of the statute; rather, it starts the statutory period running anew and determines when the cause of action accrues. Section 2415(a) conforms to the common law of contracts, under which an acknowledgment of an existing debt constitutes an implied new promise to pay. E.g., United States v. Glens Falls Insurance Co., 546 F.Supp. 643, 645 (N.D.N.Y.1982); Calimari & Perillo, Contracts § 5-7, at 187 (2d ed. 1977). The new promise is a separate binding obligation, even though it is supported by the “past consideration” of the earlier agreement. Id.
Thus, on August 25, 1976, when Meridian’s accountant, who also was one of its directors, sent Drovers National Bank a financial statement unequivocally listing the note in question as a “liability”, Meridian in effect entered into a totally new agreement to pay the amount specified. Victory Inv. Corp. v. Muskogee Elec. Traction Co., 150 F.2d 889, 891 (10th Cir.1945) (Bratton, J.). Drovers’ cause of action, subsequently acquired by the FDIC, accrued on August 25, 1976 and not on the date of the default, June 1, 1976.
The district court, however, concluded that “Assuming, arguendo, that Meridian’s transmittal of its financial statement to the bank constituted an acknowledgment of the debt, that acknowledgment could not affect the running of the statute of limitations as regards the defendants.” FDIC v. Petersen, 565 F.Supp. 1007, 1010 (D.Col.1983) (emphasis added). In so holding, the court relied on the general rule that “an acknowledgment of a debt by a principal debtor cannot affect the running of the statute of limitations as to a guarantor.” Id. The court cited 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 318(b) (1948 & Supp.1984), where this statement is found: “In the absence of a statute to the contrary or a provision in the contract of guaranty to that effect, a promise by a principal debtor will not revive the claim as to his surety or guarantor.” Id. at 404.
The majority correctly states that “[t]he question of whether an acknowledgment of a debt by a principal debtor will bind its guarantors appears to be an issue of first impression in federal courts.” Majority op. at 143. This being so, I think it is particularly unfortunate that the district court failed to consider or analyze a most critical factor in this case.
What the district court failed to consider,1 and what represents in my view the *145essential element in the proper analysis of this case, is that appellees had entered into a continuing guarantee and undertook to pay “all obligations of [Meridian] to the Bank, howsoever created, arising or evidenced, whether direct or indirect, absolute or contingent, or now or hereafter existing, or due or to become due____” (emphasis added). As the district court correctly held, the acknowledgment did not represent an “extension or renewal of the loan”, as also provided for in the guarantee agreement. The acknowledgment, however, did constitute the undertaking of a new obligation to pay, one clearly encompassed by the broad language of the guarantee agreement. Appellees, as guarantors of all debts of Meridian to the Bank, “howsoever created”, became secondarily liable on this new obligation, and the Bank’s cause of action accrued, on August 25, 1976.2
This analysis is not inconsistent with the general rule relied upon by the district court. That rule, as articulated in the source cited by the district court, applies to the guarantee of a single obligation, as demonstrated by the cases that are cited by that source. See Brock v. Western National Indemnity Co., 281 P.2d 571 (Cal. Dist.Ct.App.1955); Easton v. Ash, 116 P.2d 433 (Cal. 1941); Marinelli v. Lombardi, 196 A. 702 (N.J.1938). In the instant case, the interaction of the statutory language, which provides that “the right of action shall be deemed to accrue again at the time of” the acknowledgment, and the provision of the continuing guaranty, which binds the guarantors to pay “all obligations ... howsoever created”, compels the conclusion that these guarantors are bound by the principal’s acknowledgment. While it is true that guarantors are protected by the requirement that contracts of guarantee be strictly construed in their favor, the language of the instant contract is so broad and all-encompassing as to permit of no other interpretation.
I would reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings according to law. From the majority’s refusal to do so, I respectfully dissent.

. In an order entered July 12, 1983, denying appellant's motion to amend the findings of fact, conclusions of law and the judgment, the district court stated: "As grounds for its motion, [appellant] contends that I misconstrued the guaranty contracts by reading them as guaranteeing payment of only one particular note, rather than all debts of the principal debtor to [appellant's] predecessor in interest. No such analysis is contained in my opinion or implicit in it.” Nevertheless, I fail to see how the district court could have examined this issue in the proper analytical framework and still have arrived at the conclusion it did. The post-judgment order sheds no further light on this mys*145tery and simply states that no error was made in this regard.

. While the limitations period otherwise would have expired on August 25, 1982, the parties have agreed that all three guarantors were out of the country for varying periods during the relevant period. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2416 (1982), the statute of limitations is tolled for these periods, regardless of the reason for the absence. Cf. United States v. Myerson, 368 F.2d 393 (2d Cir.1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 991 (1967) (interpreting similar tolling provision in actions brought under the tax code). Since there appears to be a dispute as to the precise periods for which the statute was tolled, I would include this issue for the district court on remand to make proper findings of fact.