CINCO ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellee, v. STEVE J. BENSO and PASQUALE BENSO, Appellant., 1994 OK 135

Summary

The guarantor argued that his guaranty only went to the borrower's sixth promissory note, and that he entered an accord and satisfaction agreement with the note holder. The court held that the note holder failed to carry its burden on the motion for summary judgment. The note holder failed to present any evidence to support the existence of a secret agreement under the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine. There was no evidence showing that the lender treated the guaranty agreement as covering the borrower's five other promissory notes. The guaranty agreement did not express the consideration that was given in exchange for an agreement to pay the borrower's prior debts. To be valid, a guaranty agreement to pay any and all indebtedness had to be supported by distinct consideration, particularly since the guarantor denied the obligation. Evidence of the construction of the extent of the guaranty was admissible in favor of the guarantor to show that the lender recognized that the guaranty did not ...