promissory note, while the parties did not enter into the forbearance agreement, in which Invsco guaranteed Consultants’ debt to Tower, until December of 2000. Thus, the guaranty was not executed contemporaneously with the underlying obligation of indebtedness. We accordingly reverse the trial court’s finding in this regard. See Chicago Transparent Products, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 337 Ill. App. 3d 931, 940, 788 N.E.2d 23, 30 (2002). Because the guaranty was executed after the guaranteed debt was incurred, new consideration was necessary to support it. Russell, 246 Ill. App. 3d at 307, 615 N.E.2d at 1312. Invsco claims that its guaranty of Consultants’ preexisting debt to Tower is unenforceable because Invsco personally received no benefit from the 2 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, defendants’ assertion that Tower’s
holding that where parties to an oral loan agreed that the loan would be repaid on demand the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the date plaintiff demanded repayment of the loan holding that debtor did not satisfy the third prong because she did not seek out loan consolidation options even though she made several payments on her student loan debt holding that consideration for guaranty of loan previously made was that guarantors friend the bank manager who issued the loan would not lose his job for making a bad loan holding that it was not improper for a lender to halt the proposed settlement and discounted payment of plaintiffs loan when the lender believed the loan would otherwise be paid in full holding that fraudulent loan transaction exposed financial institutions to risk of loss even though loan was secured