Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
THOMAS J. GRANATA, II, Appellant
MICHAEL KROESE AND JUSTIN HILL, Appellees
Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court Collin County,
Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296-01005-2016
Justices Bridges, Myers, and Schenck.
J. Granata, II appeals the trial court's judgment
granting Michael Kroese and Justin Hill's motion for
summary judgment and awarding them damages of $220, 000 plus
interest on their suit for breach of a guaranty concerning a
promissory note. Granata brings four issues on appeal
contending the trial court erred by granting the motion for
summary judgment because (1) the motion did not state a
ground for summary judgment; (2) the only legal theory
asserted in the motion was wrong as a matter of law; (3)
appellees failed to present evidence in support of each
element of their breach of contract claim; and (4)
Granata's evidence created a fact issue that precluded
to appellees' petition, they asserted a claim for breach
of contract against Full Spectrum Diagnostics, LLC. That
claim was settled before suit was filed by Full Spectrum
executing a promissory note for $270, 000. Granata signed a
statement at the end of the note stating, "I, Thomas J.
Granata II, . . . hereby personally guaranty the amount
indebted to the Lenders." Full Spectrum made one payment
on the note in the amount of $50, 000 but made no payments
the note came due and Full Spectrum failed to pay, appellees
filed this suit alleging breach of contract against Full
Spectrum for not paying the promissory note and against
Granata for failing to pay Full Spectrum's indebtedness
as he promised in the guaranty. Full Spectrum did not answer
the suit, and appellees obtained a default judgment against
it for $220, 000. Granata answered, asserting affirmative
defenses, including lack of consideration and failure of a
condition precedent. Appellees moved for summary judgment
against Granata on his guaranty of the promissory note. The
trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and
awarded appellees "monetary relief" of $220, 000
standard for reviewing a traditional summary judgment is well
established. See Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690
S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985); McAfee, Inc. v.
Agilysys, Inc., 316 S.W.3d 820, 825 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). The movant has the burden of
showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and
that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c). In deciding whether a disputed material
fact issue exists precluding summary judgment, evidence
favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true.
Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49; In re Estate of
Berry, 280 S.W.3d 478, 480 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no
pet.). Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor
of the nonmovant and any doubts resolved in its favor.
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 824 (Tex.
2005). We review a summary judgment de novo to determine
whether a party's right to prevail is established as a
matter of law. Dickey v. Club Corp., 12 S.W.3d 172,
175 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2000, pet. denied).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
summary judgment motion is brief. Therefore, we set forth the
relevant portions of the motion in full.
of the Motion
Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on their claims against
Thomas J. Granata, II because he guaranteed the debt of Full
Spectrum Diagnostics, LLC. The default judgment was entered
against Full Spectrum Diagnostics, LLC on June 1, 2016. Mr.
Granata guaranteed the amount of indebtedness of Full
Spectrum Diagnostics, LLC. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled
to summary judgment against Mr. Granata.
. . . .
Mr. Granata guaranteed the promissory note made by Full
Spectrum Diagnostics, LLC. Full Spectrum Diagnostics, LLC.
only paid $50, 000 of the note via a third party. The note
was to be repaid by October 26, 2015. No payment has been
forthcoming on said promissory note cents [sic] the $50, 000
payment was made by the third-party.
On June 1, 2016, the court entered a default judgment against
Full Spectrum Diagnostics, LLC based on the promissory note
in the amount of the unpaid principal ...