The circuit court did not err in refusing to declare a party a subsurety (rather than cosurety) to a loan obligation, holding that a purchase-option contract was enforceable, and declining to explain the meaning of its final order on the plaintiff’s request.
There is a presumption that the sureties are cosureties. Here, there is evidence to support the circuit court’s conclusion that the equities didn’t warrant imposing a subsuretyship in favor of the plaintiff. Although reasonable jurists could differ, the circuit court didn’t abuse its discretion in refusing to declare the plaintiff a subsurety.
The circuit court also didn’t abuse its discretion in granting specific performance of the terms of the option, which require the plaintiff to convey the property “free and clear of all liens and encumbrances.” Because the option was a definite contract and all its conditions precedent have been fulfilled, the circuit court was within its discretion to award specific performance of the terms.
Finally, the plaintiff’s claim for contribution is not ripe for adjudication until she satisfies the note’s obligation. Clarifying a final order as the plaintiff requested would be akin to rendering an advisory opinion or answering a speculative question.