Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Charles Grimes, president of Raintree Roofing, Inc., signed a credit application on Raintree’s behalf and a continuing guaranty in his individual capacity in 1994 to establish credit with roofing-supply distributor ABC Supply Co., Inc. After Raintree failed to pay a $179,722.10 balance in late 2023, ABC Supply sued Raintree and Grimes for breach of contract and quantum meruit, seeking the unpaid balance, attorney’s fees, and costs.
ABC Supply moved for traditional summary judgment, contending that Grimes and Raintree were jointly and severally liable under the credit documents and alternatively liable in quantum meruit for materials they accepted but did not pay for. Grimes opposed the motion and sought summary judgment for himself, arguing that the guaranty was unenforceable. The trial court granted ABC Supply’s motion without specifying the ground on which it relied.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed. Although Grimes challenged the ruling on ABC Supply’s breach-of-guaranty theory, he did not challenge the separate quantum meruit ground advanced in ABC Supply’s summary-judgment motion. When a summary-judgment order does not specify its basis, an appellant must attack every independent ground capable of supporting the judgment.
Because the unchallenged quantum meruit ground fully supported the relief awarded, the court was required to accept that ground’s validity and affirm. The court therefore overruled Grimes’s appellate issues without deciding whether the credit application and continuing guaranty contained all essential terms of an enforceable guaranty.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant challenging an unspecified summary-judgment order must address every independent ground that could support the judgment.
- Failure to challenge one fully supporting ground requires affirmance, even if the appellant identifies possible error in another ground.
- The court did not resolve the merits of Grimes’s argument that the guaranty was incomplete or unenforceable.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores a critical appellate-briefing rule: counsel must identify and challenge every theory presented below that could independently sustain an adverse summary judgment. A potentially persuasive merits argument will not secure reversal when an alternative ground remains unchallenged.