MANGI L. AGARWAL, APPELLANT,
v.
PINNACLE REALTY MANAGEMENT CO., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 5th DCA | 1998-10-16
No. 97-3546
HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
718 So. 2d 947 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1998) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Agarwal appealed a judgment requiring him to pay $20,000 in damages as guarantor of a commercial lease after the tenant defaulted on rent. The court affirmed, holding that Agarwal's absolute guarantee made him primarily liable regardless of whether the landlord pursued other remedies first.


Holding

Agarwal is liable as guarantor. The absolute guarantee executed by Agarwal made him primarily and directly liable for any default by the tenant, and the waiver of notice of default in the guarantee eliminated any requirement that Pinnacle pursue other remedies before collecting from the guarantor.


Headnotes

[1] An absolute and unconditional guarantee of a lease obligates the guarantor for the punctual payment of rent and performance of all other obligations of the tenant.

[2] A guarantor who waives presentment, demand for payment, and notice of nonpayment or nonperformance is directly and primarily liable for the tenant's default.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“the undersigned ... absolutely and unconditionally guarantees to Landlord ... (i) the punctual payment of all reserved rents ... (ii) the prompt and full payment and performance of each and every other obligation or liability, direct, or contingent, of Tenant under the Lease”

Establishes the absolute nature of Agarwal's guarantee of all tenant obligations

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

In 1992, Pinnacle leased commercial property to Super Source, Inc. In 1995, Super Source assigned the lease to Bingo Centers, Inc., conditioned on Aga…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
W. SHARP, Judge.

[*948] W. SHARP, Judge.

Agarwal appeals from a final judgment in favor of Pinnacle Realty Management Company, Inc. for $20,000 in damages, plus costs and attorney fees. We affirm because the record establishes that Agarwal executed an absolute guarantee in favor of Pinnacle.

In 1992, Pinnacle leased commercial property in the Orienta Plaza in Altamonte Springs to Super Source, Inc. In 1995, Super Source sought to assign its leasehold to the Bingo Centers, Inc. Pinnacle' agreed to the assignment1 on the condition that Agarwal guarantee the performance of the lease in his individual capacity. He executed a document which provided:

[T]he undersigned ... absolutely and unconditionally guarantees to Landlord ... (i) the punctual payment of all reserved rents ... (ii) the prompt and full payment and performance of each and every other obligation or liability, direct, or contingent, of Tenant under the Lease ...

* * * * *

(Agarwal) waives presentment, demand for payment and notice of nonpayment or nonperformance by Tenant of any term, covenant or provision contained in the Lease ... (and) any and all notices of default ...

(Agarwal) hereby agrees that his obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect, notwithstanding Landlord’s consent to any assignment of the guaranteed Lease by Tenant....

The liability of the Guarantor under this Guaranty shall be primary, direct and immediate and not conditional or contingent upon pursuit by Landlord of any remedies it may have against any other guarantors or Tenant ... with respect to the Lease ... Landlord shall not be required to make any demand on Tenant or to pursue or exhaust remedies against any other guarantors or Tenant before, simultaneously with or áfter, enforcing its rights and remedies hereunder against Guarantor. In April of 1997, the Bingo Center was closed down because of illegal operations and it defaulted on its rent due May 1. Bingo Centers assigned its interest in the lease to Agarwal on May 13. Pinnacle posted a five-day notice of demand for rent or possession of the premises on May 16. Agarwal received the notice on June 6, and tendered the May rent ($10,700) but Pinnacle refused to accept it.

On May 29, 1997, Pinnacle sued the Bingo Centers, Super Source and Agarwal. The parties stipulated to possession, and the case was tried on damages. The court found Agarwal liable in his capacity as guarantor of the lease defaulted on by Bingo Centers. It also found Agarwal not liable in his capacity as tenant-assignee of Bingo Centers because he had not received the five-day notice of default. Although the later holding may be questionable because of the waiver language in the lease and assignment documents, it is clear Agarwal is liable under the guaranty.

The guaranty which Agarwal executed provides that the grantor waives presentment, demand for payment and notice of non-payment or non-performance by the tenant and any notice of default. It also provides that the guarantor’s obligations continue even though the landlord consents to any assignment of the lease. And, it makes the guarantor primarily and directly liable for any default.

In this case, Agarwal guaranteed the performance of the Bingo Centers under the lease. Two months rent were in default. By executing the guarantee Agarwal waived notice of default by the tenant and because the guaranty was “absolute,” Pinnacle was not required to pursue other potential defendants first {i.e., the tenants) before pressing its claim against the guarantor. Mullins v. Sunshine State Service Corp., 540 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA1989).

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . The lease between Pinnacle and Super Source required Pinnacle's consent.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Avra Jain v. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, 322 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
    …payment and not a guaranty of collection. It shall not be necessary for [Cohen], in order to enforce such payment by [Jain], to first institute suit or pursue or exhaust any rights or remedies against [H-H]. See Agarwal v. Pinnacle Realty Mgmt. Co., 718 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that the guaranty was absolute and the grantor was not required to pursue other potential defendants first before enforcing its claim against the guarantor). The trial court correctly noted that the predecessor…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw