Legal Opinion · Dissent

Klingstubbins Southeast, Inc. v. 301 Hillsborough Street Partners, LLC

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 17, 2012No. COA11-549Published

1DissentGeer, Judge

As the majority opinion points out, when a case involves a promise to guarantee an existing debt, in order for that promise to be enforceable, there must be some new consideration for that promise other than the original debt. Because I do not believe that plaintiff has pled consideration for defendant Theodore R. Reynolds’ promise to pay the debt of 301 Hillsborough Street Partners (“301 Partners”), I would hold that the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.

The consideration for the guaranty promise must exist at the time that the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Schlieper v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  2. Standard Supply Co. v. PersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  3. Standard Supply Co. v. Finch & PersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API