Court Opinion

ID: 9927134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 14:03:21.532498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:56.569936
License: Public Domain

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                         STATE OF FLORIDA
                        _____________________________

                               Case No. 6D23-644
                         Lower Tribunal No. 19-CA-1173
                        _____________________________

                                PIAL HOLDINGS, LTD,

                                      Appellant,
                                           v.

       RIVERFRONT PLAZA, LLC f/k/a THE MACFARLANE GROUP II, LLC,
   ODED T. MELTZER, SERVICE FIRST MANAGEMENT GROUP I, INC., M2 LEASING
                  FUNDS, LLC, and MYY BUILDERS, INC.,
                                      Appellees.
                        _____________________________

                   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County.
                    Joseph C. Fuller & Keith R. Kyle, Judges.

                                  January 26, 2024

TRAVER, C.J.

      Pial Holdings, LTD (“Lender”) appeals the trial court’s final summary

judgment for Oded T. Meltzer and Service First Management Group, Inc. (“Service

First”).1 Lender argues that the trial court erred when it found as a matter of law that

Meltzer and Service First did not personally guarantee Lender’s restructured $10

      1
       This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this
Court on January 1, 2023.
million loan to MacFarlane Group II, now known as Riverfront Plaza, LLC

(“Borrower”). Finding that at minimum, genuine issues of material fact preclude

summary judgment on this issue, we reverse. 2

        This dispute stems from a years-long effort by Meltzer and his former business

partner, Robert McFarlane, to build a two-phase senior living development project

in downtown Fort Myers. Relevant here is the second phase, which Borrower

ultimately owned and on which Lender ultimately foreclosed. Borrower’s managing

member was TMOG Holdings II, LLC (“TMOG II”). In turn, TMOG II originally

had two managing members: Metivier Holdings, LLC (“Metivier”) and O&T Fort

Myers, LLC (“O&T”). MacFarlane was Metivier’s managing member, and Meltzer

was O&T’s.

        Lender acquired Borrower’s original loan, which MacFarlane and Meltzer

personally guaranteed, via assignment. Later, a dispute arose between MacFarlane

and other TMOG II members about the project. The resulting settlement saw

MacFarlane agree to transfer his and Metivier’s interests in TMOG II back to TMOG

II in exchange for a release of his personal guarantee on the second phase’s original

loan.

        Lender raises one other appellate issue, which we affirm without further
        2

discussion.
                                        2
      The parties agree that Borrower, Lender, Meltzer, and Service First

restructured the original loan, and that Lender released MacFarlane from his

personal guarantee. They also concur that the amended note and mortgage identify

Borrower as the restructured loan’s borrower and mortgagor. They dispute, though,

whether Meltzer and Service First guaranteed the restructured loan. At issue is a

two-paragraph document entitled “Guarantee.” The first paragraph says that the

“undersigned, called Guarantors,” agreed unconditionally to guarantee the loan

jointly, severally, and personally:

             The undersigned, called Guarantors, jointly and severally,
             unconditionally and personally guarantee and promise to
             pay PIAL HOLDINGS LTD, a British Virgin Island
             Company, Number 1938322 (“Lender”) or its assigns, the
             full indebtedness described in the following: (i) [the
             mortgage and amendments], (ii) [the note and
             amendments], and (iii) [the loan agreement as assigned
             and amended] (Collectively, the “Security Instruments”)
             and any amendments to the Security Instruments. Upon a
             default by Borrower under any of the Security
             Instruments, the Guarantors shall be jointly and severally
             liable to assume the obligations of the Borrower under the
             repayment terms set forth in the Security Instruments.

      The second paragraph explained that the “Guarantor[’s]” obligations under

the Guarantee were continuing, irrevocable, and independent of any right or remedy

against Borrower:

             This Guarantee is absolute and unconditional and is not
             subject to any conditions. Guarantor is fully liable to
             perform all of the Borrower’s duties and obligations under
             Security Instruments as of the date of execution of this
                                         3
              Guarantee. This Guarantee is a continuing guarantee and
              applies to all future guaranteed obligations. This
              Guarantee is a guarantee of payment and not collection.
              The obligations and liabilities of Guarantor under this
              Guarantee shall not be conditioned or contingent upon the
              pursuit of Lender or any right or remedy against Borrower
              or against any assets securing the payment described in the
              Security Instruments or right of setoff with respect to such
              obligations. This guarantee is irrevocable and as such
              cannot be cancelled, terminated, or revoked by
              Guarantors.

         Meltzer signed the Guarantee twice, under “Borrower” and under Service

First:

         The Guarantee does not define “Borrower” or “Guarantors.”           Borrower

ultimately defaulted on the restructured loan and conceded below that Lender could

foreclose. Lender also sued Meltzer and Service First for breach of the Guarantee.

Meltzer and Service First moved for summary judgment, contending Lender could

not enforce the Guarantee against them. Lender did not cross-move for summary

judgment; it argued that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary
                                           4
judgment in Meltzer’s and Service First’s favor. The trial court entered summary

judgment, finding the Guarantee did not impose personal liability on Meltzer and

Service First as a matter of law.

      We review de novo the trial court’s order granting summary judgment. See

Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000).

The trial court should enter summary judgment only if no genuine dispute of material

fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fla. R.

Civ. P. 1.510(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of production to show

the lack of a genuine dispute, and the nonmoving party must respond with evidence

showing that a reasonable jury could find in its favor. See Shiver v. Chertoff, 549

F.3d 1342, 1343 (11th Cir. 2008). The trial court must view all evidence in the light

most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in its

favor. See Newcomb v. Spring Creek Cooler Inc., 926 F.3d 709, 713 (11th Cir.

2019). The moving party carries its burden when it shows “an absence of evidence

to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325

(1986). The nonmoving party must then point to evidence in the record

demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue. Id. at 324.

      We also review the trial court’s interpretation of the Guarantee, like all

contracts, de novo. See Nabbie v. Orlando Outlet Owner, LLC, 237 So. 3d 463, 466

(Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (citing Jackson v. Shakespeare Found., Inc., 108 So. 3d 587,

                                         5
593 (Fla. 2013)). In construing a contract’s terms, we must review the entire

instrument as a whole and according to its plain language. E.g., Talbott v. First Bank

Fla., FSB, 59 So. 3d 243, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). When parties execute two or

more documents at or near the same time and throughout the same transaction, we

will read and construe those documents together as a single contract. See Whitley v.

Royal Trails Prop. Owners’ Ass’n, 910 So. 2d 381, 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing

Courtesy Auto Grp., Inc. v. Garcia, 778 So. 2d 1000, 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)).

      Where a contract’s terms are clear and unambiguous, we must glean the

parties’ intent from the four corners of the document. See Crawford v. Barker, 64

So. 3d 1246, 1255 (Fla. 2011). Ambiguity exists only when contractual language

“is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” Penzer v. Transp. Ins.,

29 So. 3d 1000, 1005 (Fla. 2010). But “[a] true ambiguity does not exist [in a

contract] merely because [the] contract can possibly be interpreted in more than one

manner.” Am. Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Scheller, 462 So. 2d 1, 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

Therefore, where one interpretation of a contract would be absurd and another would

be consistent with reason and probability, we will interpret the contract in the

rational manner. Vyfvinkel v. Vyfvinkel, 135 So. 3d 384, 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

      Based on this record before us, the Guarantee is ambiguous. “A guaranty is a

promise to pay the debt of another on the default of the person primarily liable for

payment or performance.” Fort Plantation Invs., LLC v. Ironstone Bank, 85 So. 3d

                                          6
1169, 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). It must be in writing, and the guarantor must sign

it. § 725.01, Fla. Stat. (2017). The “writing” must contain “language indicating that

it was intended to be a personal guarantee under Florida law.” Schmidt v. Sabow,

331 So. 3d 781, 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

      Although the document at issue is called a “Guarantee,” it does not define

“Guarantors” or “Borrower,” the latter of which appears over Meltzer’s and Service

First’s signatures. But no magic words are required to create a guaranty; instead, we

look to the substance of an agreement to determine whether it constitutes a guaranty.

See e.g., Robert C. Malt & Co. v. Carpet World Distribs., Inc., 763 So. 2d 508, 510–

11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (interpreting corporate officer’s conditional promise to pay

corporation’s debts as personal guaranty despite that promise’s inclusion in lease

addendum).

      Meltzer and Service First were not “borrowers” of the restructured loan; only

Borrower was. Corporations and persons cannot guarantee their own debts, and

therefore, we will not construe as guaranties documents signed on behalf of the

corporation already involved because to do so would render the guaranty a nullity

and meaningless. See, e.g., Tampa Bay Econ. Dev. Corp. v. Edman, 598 So. 2d 172,

174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (“For a corporation to guarantee its own debt would add

nothing to its existing obligation and would be meaningless.”). Meltzer and Service

First do not contest this principle, but they contend Service First became the

                                         7
successor mortgagor to Borrower in the restructured loan. They also claim that

Meltzer signed the Guarantee on Borrower’s behalf, even though “Personally”

appears after his name on the signature block. Lender disputes both contentions. It

argues that nothing in the restructured loan transaction would allow Borrower to

transfer its obligation to Service First. It also suggests that the word “Personally,”

alongside the Guarantee’s references to joint and several personal liability, describes

a personal guarantee. It does not explain, however, why “Borrower” appeared above

Meltzer’s and Service First’s signatures.

      While we make no suggestion of what should occur on remand, we find that

based on this record, there are—at minimum—genuine issues of material fact

precluding summary judgment in Meltzer’s and Service First’s favor on the

Guarantee. We therefore reverse for further proceedings.

      AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for further

proceedings.

MIZE and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.

Alexander Brockmeyer, of Boyle, Leonard & Anderson, P.A., Fort Myers, for
Appellant.

Robert A. Stok and Theodore Sandler, of Stok Kon + Braverman, Fort Lauderdale,
for Appellees, Oded T. Meltzer and Service First Management Group I, Inc.

                                            8
No Appearance for Appellees, Riverfront Plaza, LLC f/k/a The MacFarlane Group
II, LLC, m2 Leasing Funds, LLC, and MYY Builders, Inc.

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
          AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED

                                     9