Texas courts have, on the contrary, also utilized the term “ambiguous” when discussing the construction of guaranty agreements. See Prentice v. Frost Bank, No. 03-15-00506-CV, 2017 WL 2729896, at *4 n.19 (Tex. App.-Austin June 23, 2017, pet. denied) (“If a guaranty is ambiguous and susceptible to two reasonable interpretations, courts should use the interpretation that favors the guarantor.” (quoting Pham v. Mongiello, 58 S.W.3d 284, 288 (Tex. App.-Austin 2001, pet. denied))); Preston Ridge Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Tyler, 796 S.W.2d 772, 780 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1990, writ denied)
That drafting choice in the Trust Contract has consequences. See Prentice v. Frost Bank, No. 03-15-00506-CV, 2017 WL 2729896, at *7 (Tex. App.-Austin June 23, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (interpreting the terms "guaranty" and "guarantor" to have a specific meaning because the terms were capitalized).