Donald Goosic, a building contractor in Nebraska, did business as “Homestead” builders. To construct a house “on spec” (without a preconstruction buyer), Donald obtained materials from Sack Lumber Co. on an open account. When Donald “got behind in his payments,” his wife, Frances, cosigned a note payable to Sack for $43,000, the outstanding balance on the account. Donald made payments on the note until he obtained a discharge of his debts in a bankruptcy proceeding to which Frances was not a party. Less than a year later, Sack filed a suit in a Nebraska state court against Frances to collect on the note. She contended that she was an accommodation party, not a maker, and thus was not liable because the applicable statute of limitations had run. She testified that Donald “made more debt than . . . money” and that she was “paying the bills out of [her] income.” The Goosics’ most recent tax returns showed only losses relating to Homestead. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a person receiving only an indirect benefit from a transaction can qualify as an accommodation party. How would you rule on this question of fact? Why? [Sack Lumber Co. v. Goosic, 15 Neb. App. 529, 732 N.W.2d 690 (2007)]