Capital Color Printing Inc. v. Ahern

Capital Color Printing, Inc. “CCP” brought this action against Quality Printing 4 Less, LLP and its successor in interest, Martin Michaels Printing, LLP collectively “Quality Printing”, and its owners, Jason M. Ahern and Todd M. Heflin. The complaint sought payment due for printing services CCP performed for Quality Printing, and alleged that Ahern and Heflin were personally liable for this debt based upon a written guaranty. CCP now appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Ahern and Heflin individually and its denial of CCP’s motion for summary judgment as to Heflin. We reverse, finding that the guaranty at issue renders Heflin personally liable for the debts incurred by Quality Printing, and that a material question of fact exists as to whether Ahern clothed Heflin with apparent authority to sign his name on that guaranty. “On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review of the evidence to determine if there exists a genuine issue of material fact and whether the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law. Cit.” Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Moody Bible Institute of Chicago , 283 Ga. App. 488, 489 642 SE2d 118 2007.

So viewed, the evidence shows that Quality Printing is a printing broker, meaning that it sells printing services to customers but subcontracts with third parties, such as CCP, to actually perform those services. In February 2004, Ahern, acting on behalf of Quality Printing, contacted CCP about performing printing work. Elaine Tennant, CCP’s Credit Manager, explained to Ahern that he and Heflin would have to execute personal guaranties before CCP could perform work for Quality Printing.