This case involves two business owners who wanted to refinance their business property. The plaintiffs wanted to refinance with a limited recourse note, which would eliminate the possibility of personal liability. They went to a broker who recommended a company that gave the lowest quote. After the documents were signed, the company’s attorney emailed the plaintiff’s attorney a copy of the previously signed guaranty, with an additional full recourse loan term. The plaintiffs alleged that when the plaintiffs refused the full recourse loan guaranty, the company’s attorney changed the previous document signed by the plaintiffs from a limited-recourse to a full recourse loan guaranty. The plaintiffs claim this was contrary to their expressed wishes and contrary to their instructions and signing. The loan closed on the basis of the altered documents and the company disbursed the loan funds to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs received the full set of closing documents including the limited recourse guarantee and it did not contain the language of the full recourse clause. At first, the plaintiffs were making payments on time. Then they stopped making payments when they experienced some hardships and needed the funds in escrow. They were not allowed to take them out, however, because they were defaulting on their loan. The plaintiffs allege that they were duped into a limited, nonfull recourse loan note.