Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 371
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 371.065 (2026)

Requirements for valid, enforceable guaranty

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) No guaranty of an indebtedness which either is not written on, or does not expressly refer to, the instrument or instruments being guaranteed shall be valid or enforceable unless it is in writing signed by the guarantor and contains provisions specifying the amount of the maximum aggregate liability of the guarantor thereunder, and the date on which the guaranty terminates. Termination of the guaranty on that date shall not affect the liability of the guarantor with respect to:

(a) Obligations created or incurred prior to the date; or

(b) Extensions or renewals of, interest accruing on, or fees, costs or expenses incurred with respect to, the obligations on or after the date.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a guaranty may, in addition to the maximum aggregate liability of the guarantor specified therein, guarantee payment of interest accruing on the guaranteed indebtedness, and fees, charges and costs of collecting the guaranteed indebtedness, including reasonable attorneys' fees, without specifying the amount of the interest, fees, charges and costs. Effective: July 13, 1990 History: Amended 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 38, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1990. -- Created 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 485, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1986.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Wheeler & Clevenger Oil Co. v. Washburn, 127 S.W.3d 609 (Ky. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wheeler & Clevenger Oil Co. v. Washburn, 127 S.W.3d 609 (Ky. 2004). · cites it 24× “” When Appellant sought enforcement of Appel-lee’s guaranties, Appellee claimed that his guaranties were invalid and unenforceable under KRS 371.065 because they did not specify a maximum amount of liability and a termination date.”
Wells Fargo Fin. Leasing, Inc. v. Griffin, 970 F. Supp. 2d 700 (W.D. Ky. 2013). · cites it 15× “Thus, even assuming § 187 of the Restatement was applicable, the purported choice-of-law clause would likely not be enforceable as an “explicit provision” within the meaning of § 187, and Kentucky law would still apply.”
Smith v. Bethlehem Sand & Gravel Co., LLC, 342 S.W.3d 288 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 14× “KRS 371.065 does not invalidate the guaranty agreement.”
Buridi v. Leasing Grp. Pool II, LLC, 447 S.W.3d 157 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 13× “Michael McClain filed a single answer 14 on behalf of all thirty doctors admitting execution of the guaranties but disputing: 1) their enforceability under KRS 371.065, and 2) the amount owed under the leases.”
Alliant Tax Credit Fund 31-A, Ltd. v. Nicholasville Cmty. Hous., LLC, 663 F. Supp. 2d 575 (E.D. Ky. 2009). · cites it 16× “McMaster opposes the motion for summary judgment on the ground that the guaranty agreements are not valid and enforceable under KRS 371.065 in that they fail to refer to the instrument being guarantied or to state the maximum amount guarantied and the maximum term of the…”
Guangzhou Consortium Display Prod. Co. v. PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 956 F. Supp. 2d 769 (E.D. Ky. 2013). · cites it 20× “§ 371.065. II. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Consortium USA, a Kentucky corporation, is a manufacturer of point of purchase displays and a designer of product packaging.”
APL, INC. v. Ohio Valley Aluminum, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 571 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 11× “The judge found that the instrument was not required to conform to KRS 371.065, since that statute at the time of the guaranty’s execution had application solely to guaranties of commercial paper.”
Intercargo Ins. Co. v. B.W. Farrell, Inc., 89 S.W.3d 422 (Ky. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “Intercargo argues that KRS 371.065 does not apply to its indemnity agreement with the appellees.”
Island Fork Constr. v. Jimmy Bowling, 872 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2017). “” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 371.065(1). The Trust Fund does not have contracts with insurance companies that provide coverage for the Black Lung Benefits Act, so the Trust Fund’s coverage of benefits does not meet the technical requirements for a guaranty under Kentucky law.”
KFC Corp. v. Kazi, 29 F. Supp. 3d 945 (W.D. Ky. 2014). · cites it 2× “KRS § 371.065(1). If any one of the three prongs is met, the statute is satisfied and the guaranty is valid and enforceable.”
Kentucky Powder Co. v. Donnie May (Ky. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 8× “May filed an answer setting forth a defense that the personal guaranty of May, individually, was unenforceable under KRS 371.065. On March 29, 2021, Kentucky Powder filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts of its complaint against May, Inc.”
David Stone v. Volvo Fin. Servs., a Div. of Vfs US LLC (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “In the answer, they alleged that the guaranty at issue was unenforceable because it did not conform to Kentucky’s guaranty requirements set forth in KRS 371.065. SNR RailOps also admitted that it had not made the required payments on the equipment.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 371.065(1) — 6 cases
Wells Fargo Fin. Leasing, Inc. v. Griffin, 970 F. Supp. 2d 700 (W.D. Ky. 2013). “Thus, even assuming § 187 of the Restatement was applicable, the purported choice-of-law clause would likely not be enforceable as an “explicit provision” within the meaning of § 187, and Kentucky law would still apply.”
Intercargo Ins. Co. v. B.W. Farrell, Inc., 89 S.W.3d 422 (Ky. Ct. App. 2002). “Intercargo argues that KRS 371.065 does not apply to its indemnity agreement with the appellees.”
Island Fork Constr. v. Jimmy Bowling, 872 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2017). “” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 371.065(1). The Trust Fund does not have contracts with insurance companies that provide coverage for the Black Lung Benefits Act, so the Trust Fund’s coverage of benefits does not meet the technical requirements for a guaranty under Kentucky law.”
KFC Corp. v. Kazi, 29 F. Supp. 3d 945 (W.D. Ky. 2014). “KRS § 371.065(1). If any one of the three prongs is met, the statute is satisfied and the guaranty is valid and enforceable.”
Kentucky Powder Co. v. Donnie May (Ky. Ct. App. 2022). “May filed an answer setting forth a defense that the personal guaranty of May, individually, was unenforceable under KRS 371.065. On March 29, 2021, Kentucky Powder filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts of its complaint against May, Inc.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 371.065(2) — 1 case
Wheeler & Clevenger Oil Co. v. Washburn, 127 S.W.3d 609 (Ky. 2004). “” When Appellant sought enforcement of Appel-lee’s guaranties, Appellee claimed that his guaranties were invalid and unenforceable under KRS 371.065 because they did not specify a maximum amount of liability and a termination date.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 371.065(l) — 1 case
Wells Fargo Fin. Leasing, Inc. v. Griffin, 970 F. Supp. 2d 700 (W.D. Ky. 2013). “Thus, even assuming § 187 of the Restatement was applicable, the purported choice-of-law clause would likely not be enforceable as an “explicit provision” within the meaning of § 187, and Kentucky law would still apply.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.