LaFarge Building Materials Inc. v. Pratt

Two documents could not be deemed contemporaneous writings, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 24-6-3 a, because one of them was unsigned.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

LaFarge Building Materials, Inc. brought suit against Lowell Pratt Residential, LLC and its principal, Lowell F. Pratt, seeking payment for building materials supplied for residential construction projects in Gwinnett and Hall Counties. LaFarge claimed that Pratt was individually liable for the debt pursuant to a personal guaranty executed by him as part of a credit application. The trial court denied LaFarge’s motion for summary judgment and granted Pratt’s renewed motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that the guaranty was unenforceable as a matter of law. Because the guaranty failed to sufficiently identify the principal debtor and thus did not comply with the statute of frauds, we affirm. Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 c. “A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Citation and footnote omitted. Dabbs v. Key Equip. Fin. , 303 Ga. App. 570 694 SE2d 161 2010.

So viewed, the record reflects that Lowell Pratt Residential, LLC “LPR” was in the residential construction business. Lowell F. Pratt was a member and manager of LPR. LaFarge Building Materials, Inc., formerly known as Blue Circle, Inc., was a supplier of residential building materials that would extend credit to qualifying customers. Central to this case is an unsigned “Application For Credit” submitted to Blue Circle on behalf of LPR the “Application”, the second page of which includes a separate box containing a “Continuing Guaranty” signed by Pratt the “Guaranty”.

LaFarge Building Materials Inc. v. Pratt

Two documents could not be deemed contemporaneous writings, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 24-6-3 a, because one of them was unsigned.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report