With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". then appealed. We disagree with the trial court. The issue here is whether Wojciechowski’s signature on the credit application gives Great Lakes recourse to proceed against him individually as a guarantor. See Robert C. Malt & Co. v. Carpet World Distributors, Inc., 763 So.2d 508, 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000 31, fn. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (finding no error in the trial court finding that the appellant individually guaranteed the obligation of a corporation in which he was a principal; “[T]o adopt appellant’s argument that he executed the guarantee only in a corporate capacity would make the guarantee superfluous or a legal nullity because the corporation would be guaranteeing its own debt.”); Central Nat’l Bank of Miami v. Muskat Corp. of America, Inc., 430 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, we find the trial court’s

A: holding affidavit by bank president was sufficient to support summary judgment where it established plaintiff bank owned the note and the amount due on the note and defendant failed to offer controverting evidence
B: holding that the fact that a corporate president added the word president after his name on a guaranty agreement could not defeat the agreements purpose of making the president a guarantor of the corporations promissory note the addition of the word president did not create a corporation guaranty of its own obligation
C: holding that when the basis of the earlier suit was that the plaintiff had had defaulted on a promissory note and the claim in the instant action is whether that promissory note was valid the transaction test is met
D: holding that a bank may be estopped from denying the apparent authority of one who serves as its executive vice president
B.