the general rule that a guarantor of note is discharged by renewal or extension of payment when made without his consent). In sum, nothing on the current record supports any other conclusion. Review of the operative documents leaves this court without the slightest doubt that Defendant’s personal guaranty remained in place and was neither released nor discharged by the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding. See also, Frieden v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 142 Va. 738, 742, 128 S.E. 61 (1925) (excluding parol evidence and affirming judgment on guaranty); Midlantic Commercial Leasing Corp. v. Donaldson, 38 Va. Cir. 520 (Va. Cir. Ct.1994) (excluding parol evidence and granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment); Johnson v. First Nat’l Bank, 81 B.R. 87, 89 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.1987) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION In accordance with the laws of the
holding that because the commissions interpretation of the cutoff rule has remained constant since its inception the applicant knew or should have known that an intervening proposal filed on the last possible day could act to deny him consolidation holding principals personal liability for unremitted withholding taxes nondischargeable even though corporation rather than principal withheld taxes holding that defendant may be entitled to selfdefense instruction even though he did not testify holding that even though principals did not sign consolidation documentation as personal guarantors old guaranty remained in force holding the court did not abuse its discretion in modifying custody even though the court did not find father had shown a material change other than the 15 year old childs