The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kimba M. Wood, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff Orix Financial Services, Inc. ("Orix") brought this action against Defendants Precision Charters, Inc. ("Precision") and James W. Sigmon ("Sigmon"), demanding payment on two promissory notes. Orix now moves for summary judgment against Defendants. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
I. Precision's Debts to Orix
In May 1997, Orix and Precision entered into a financing arrangement for three buses. Precision signed a promissory note, pursuant to which it agreed to pay Orix $186,905.00 in monthly installments. (Compl., Ex. A.) The parties also signed a schedule of equipment that included the three buses. (See id., Ex. B.)
The parties entered into another financing agreement in February 1998 for the purchase of a fourth bus. By means of a promissory note, Precision agreed to pay installments totaling $172,200.00. (Id., Ex. F.) The schedule of equipment was revised to include the fourth bus. (Id., Ex. G.)
II. Sigmon's Guaranty of Precision's Debts to Orix
In 1994, Sigmon signed a personal guaranty agreement (the "Guaranty"), by which he agreed to be responsible for all past, present, and future debts of Precision to Orix.*fn1 (Compl., Ex. D.) The Guaranty stated that it would continue in force until Sigmon gave Orix written notice of termination, and that it applied to debts either "now or hereafter existing." (Id.) Although Sigmon alleges that he did not believe that the Guaranty applied to the 1997 and 1998 financing agreements, he did not terminate the Guaranty. (See Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 40; Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Reply ¶ 41.)
Precision failed to make the payments required on the 1997 note in October 2000 and thereafter, and on the 1998 note in November 2000 and thereafter. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 8, 23.) Orix repossessed the equipment and sold it on April 3, 2001. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 29.)
The Court should award summary judgment to Orix only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Orix is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Town of Southold v. Town of E. Hampton, 477 F.3d 38, 46 (2d Cir. 2007). A genuine issue of material fact exists if there is enough evidence favoring Defendants for a jury to return a verdict in their favor. Id. The Court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to Defendants, drawing all reasonable inferences and resolving all ambiguities in their favor. Id.
I. Precision and Sigmon's ...