Action alleging breach of contract and accounts stated for the past due amount on a credit card; Whether the defendant-personal guarantor’s status as guarantor was properly revoked by a fax from the defendant-debtor to the plaintiff-creditor; Construction of guaranty agreements; Gibbons Ranches, LLC v. Bailey (NE); Daehnke v. Nebraska Dep’t of Soc. Servs. (NE); Kozlik v. Emelco, Inc. (NE); Production Credit Ass’n of Midlands v. Schmer (NE); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Heyne (NE)

[Unpublished opinion.] The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for the plaintiff-creditor in its action seeking payment from defendant-Nagel as the guarantor of defendant-High Tech’s credit card debt because Nagel failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the purported revocation of his status as guarantor. Hi-Tech entered into a credit card agreement with plaintiff, and Nagel signed a guaranty agreement on the account. Hi-Tech later faxed plaintiff a letter seeking to remove Nagel as guarantor. Plaintiff responded by sending Hi-Tech a new guaranty contract and asking it to appoint a new guarantor, which it failed to do. When Hi-Tech defaulted on the account, plaintiff sued both Hi-Tech and Nagel for breach of contract and accounts stated for the past due amount of $48,849.28 plus costs, interest, and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the court rejected Nagel’s argument that he established a genuine issue of material fact whether High-Tech’s revocation of his guaranty status was valid. “The parties’ guaranty unambiguously required the revoking guarantor to send a written and signed notice of revocation to plaintiff at a specific address, by certified mail with return receipt request, to the attention of FNCCC Legal. The guaranty also required plaintiff to sign the revocation. It is undisputed that” High-Tech’s CEO, not Nagel, “sent the purported revocation letter.” Moreover, the CEO “faxed the letter, rather than sending it by certified mail to the specified address” with return receipt requested, and “also did not address the letter to the attention of FNCCC Legal.” Finally, Nagel “did not sign the letter,” nor did the CEO “obtain plaintiff’s signature agreeing to the revocation. The purported letter of revocation thus did not meet the guaranty’s unambiguous requirements for a valid revocation.” Thus, “by the plain meaning of the guaranty,” the alleged revocation “did not ‘operate to relieve’” Nagel “of his ‘responsibility for indebtedness,’ and he remained liable for Hi-Tech’s subsequent balances on its credit card account with plaintiff.” Affirmed.