Josephine Jones, or Jo-Jo, has always loved cooking. As a kid, she insisted on cooking dinner for her brother, Tommy (who is 3 years older) even if she constantly made a mess. Tommy often ended up feeding the food to the dog, but he was proud of his sister for her nightly effort, and didn't have the heart to tell her that her food was over seasoned and frequently inedible.

Shortly after her 17th birthday, Jo-Jo decided she was going to pursue her lifelong dream by opening a small restaurant. She found a great spot on a busy corner and went to Helpful Bank for a loan. With little to no experience, the bank was skeptical to loan her the money. She complained to her older brother who agreed to go with her to the bank. After much negotiating, and Tommy's promise to co-sign the loan as a surety, the bank agreed to lend Josephine $30,000 if she could get her parents (the Joneses) to sign a separate guarantee agreement as well. Elated, Josephine executed all the necessary paperwork.

10 months later, Jo-Jo is in trouble. Her restaurant received terrible reviews in the local paper and she has barely been able to break even. Tommy met a girl and moved to Ohio, where he is living, jobless, in her parents' trailer. He claims that he intends to raise Alpaca, once he can save up "a few bucks." When Jo-Jo fails to make her payment to Helpful Bank, they want to collect the money owed. Knowing that Jo-Jo's business is broke and her brother is insolvent, Helpful Bank decides to just go after the Joneses directly.

Is this a proper move for Helpful Bank? Can they collect money from the Joneses? Please discuss the proper order for Helpful Bank to pursue collections. Please also discuss any defenses available to Jo-Jo, Tommy and the Joneses.

An IRAC-based legal research essay with appropriate citations is appropriate for this assignment.