Guaranty. In 1981, in Troy, Ohio, Willis and Mary Jane Ward leased a commercial building to Buckeye Pizza Corp to operate a pizza parlor. Two years later, Buckeye assigned its interest in the building to Ohio, Ltd. In 1985, Ohio sold its pizza business,

Question

including its lease of the Wards' building, to NR Dayton Mall, Inc, an Indiana corporation and a subsidiary of Noble Roman's, Inc As part of the deal, Noble Roman's agreed that it "unconditionally guarantees the performance by N.R. DAYTON MALL, INC., of all its obligations under the . . . Assumption Undertaking." In the "Assumption Undertaking," NR agreed to accept assignment of the Ward lease and to pay Buckeye's and Ohio's expenses if they were sued under it. A dozen years later, NR defaulted on the lease and abandoned the premises. The Wards filed a suit in an Indiana state court against Noble Roman's and others, contending that the firm was liable for NR's default. Noble Roman's argued that it had guaranteed only to indemnify Buckeye and Ohio. The Wards filed a motion for summary judgment. Should the court grant the motion? Explain.

Answer 1

Guaranty
The court issued a summary judgment in favor of the Wards in the amount of $46,252.98. Both parties appealed (the Wards thought the damages amount was too low) to a state intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The appellate court emphasized that under the "Assumption Undertaking," "NR Dayton agreed to accept the Assignment of the Lease and further agreed to indemnify Buckeye. Thus, it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that Noble Roman's was guaranteeing the performance of NR Dayton under the Lease obligations. As a result, the trial court did not err in granting the Wards' motion for summary judgment."