Court Opinion

ID: 989614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:09:28.414687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:44.838311
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROCKVILLE FUEL AND FEED COMPANY,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAMES DESANTIS,
Defendant & Third Party
                                                               No. 95-2543
Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

A & J CONCRETE CORPORATION,
Defendant,

FRANCES KILBY,
Third Party Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.
(CA-94-1730-A)

Argued: May 9, 1996

Decided: June 17, 1996

Before HALL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Stephen Warren Nichols, DOCTER, DOCTER & LYNN,
P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Ronald William Stern, Alex-
andria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, James DeSantis, was the president and one-third owner
of A & J Concrete Corporation ("A & J"), a now defunct construction
company that had purchased substantial amounts of concrete from
appellee, Rockville Fuel & Feed Company ("Rockville"). A & J and
Rockville stipulated that A & J owes Rockville $200,000 pursuant to
a line of credit Rockville extended to A & J for the purchase of con-
crete. The instant action concerns Rockville's attempt to collect on a
personal guarantee Rockville contends was signed by DeSantis or his
agent. The district court, after a bench trial, held that DeSantis' agent
had signed the personal guarantee in DeSantis' name and that DeSan-
tis was personally liable for the $200,000. J.A. at 65-68. DeSantis
appealed, arguing that he never authorized his signature to be placed
on a personal guarantee and that, in any event, the agreement he
signed was superseded by a later agreement.

In March 1982, A & J completed a credit application to purchase
concrete. Frances Kilby, A & J's bookkeeper, testified that DeSantis
gave her the credit application, she filled it out, and DeSantis then
"looked at it." J.A. at 28. Kilby then brought the credit application to
Rockville's office. John Wells, an employee of Rockville, refused to
accept the application because it was not signed. Kilby then left Rock-
ville and called DeSantis, telling him that Rockville would not accept
the document unless it was signed. DeSantis authorized Kilby to "sign

                     2
[his name to] the paper." J.A. at 29. Kilby then signed both her name
and DeSantis' name to the credit application and returned to Rock-
ville.* As is plain from the face of the application, the only place for
a signature on the two-page document is under a passage marked
"WHEREBY AGREE TO BE PERSONALLY liable . . . ." J.A. at 19.

First, DeSantis contends that Kilby had no authority to sign a per-
sonal guarantee in his name. The district court rejected this argument,
holding that DeSantis authorized Kilby to sign the 1982 Credit Agree-
ment and that under Maryland law, one who signs a document is pre-
sumed to have knowledge of it contents absent fraud or duress.

Second, DeSantis argues that even if he is liable under the 1982
Credit Agreement, a 1986 Credit Agreement which he did not sign
supersedes the 1982 agreement and exonerates him from liability
under the doctrine of merger. The district court found that the 1986
document was "an internal document produced by Rockville that was
not intended to be a credit application or guaranty," J.A. at 68, and
thus held that the unsigned 1986 update did not supersede the 1982
agreement.

We have carefully considered the arguments in the briefs and at
oral argument and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court on the reasoning of that court.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*Kilby is not a party to this suit because she has filed for bankruptcy.

                    3