Civil Practice – Personal Jurisdiction – Florida Resident – S.C. Businesses – Guarantor

Listen to this article

CresCom Bank v. Terry (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-140-12, 13 pp.) (Patrick Michael Duffy, J.) 2:12-CV-00063; D.S.C.

Holding: According to the complaint, defendant Terry, a Florida resident, executed and delivered to the plaintiff-bank multiple guaranties, guarantying the payment and performance of all debts that three companies owed to the S.C. bank. Although the mere execution of a guaranty does not invariably subject one to personal jurisdiction in a foreign forum, Terry signed all of the relevant loan agreements as an authorized signatory for the three companies, he has at all relevant times been an authorized signatory on multiple accounts at the bank, and he has an interest in all three companies. Additionally, Terry has initiated telephone and other communications directly to bank officers and employees, and he has personally visited the bank in Charleston and has met with bank employees on multiple occasions relating to the notes, mortgages and guaranties at issue. Terry has sufficient contacts with South Carolina to allow this court to assert personal jurisdiction over him.

Terry’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied. His motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Georgia is also denied.

Terry clearly stood to gain from the loans at issue as he owns an interest in borrower CCT Reserve, LLC, and the other two borrowers have merged into CCT Reserve.

Each of the guaranty agreements at issue provided that it would be governed by the laws of the state in which it was executed. The guaranty contracts are captioned “Charleston, SC”, and nowhere on the contracts did anyone note that they were being executed anywhere other than South Carolina. Additionally, the bank has alleged that these guaranties were executed in South Carolina.

The bank’s well-pled allegation, which is only disputed by Terry’s own word, is sufficient at this point. Therefore, in addition to Terry’s other contacts with the state, the fact that he signed a contract which allegedly is governed by S.C. law makes an even more compelling case that Terry purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of S.C. law.

Requiring Terry, who guaranteed loans from an S.C. bank, to shoulder the burden of travelling from Florida or Georgia to South Carolina is not unreasonable or unfair. Furthermore, South Carolina has an important interest in adjudicating a dispute involving guarantees of loans issued by one of its banks for the purpose of developing land in South Carolina and secured by property in South Carolina.

The exercise of jurisdiction in this case comports with fair play and substantial justice.

Where Terry is a Florida resident, and where plaintiff’s allegations do not indicate that a substantial part of the events or omissions at issue occurred in the Northern District of Georgia, venue is not proper in the Northern District of Georgia.

Motions denied.