In Warfield v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., 307 Md. 142, 143, 512 A.2d 1044 (1986), the Court of Appeals held that "the inclusion of the word 'seal' in a pre-printed form executed by an individual was sufficient to make the instrument one under seal." The Court described the form at issue in that case as follows: "In 1979 appellant, Barbara L. Warfield, executed a guaranty to appellee, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BG & E). It was on a regular form of the company. "(SEAL)" was printed at the end of each of the prepared lines on the form and appears after the signature of Warfield. The instrument does not recite that it is under seal." Id. In holding that the guaranty was a contract under seal, the Court rejected Warfield's contention that "there must be some recognition in the instrument that it is under seal." Id. at 147-48. The Court quoted with approval the following language from General Petroleum Corp. v. Seaboard Terminals Corp., 23 F. Supp. 137, 140 (D. Md. 1938): If the contract is signed by an individual opposite and in obvious relation to a legally sufficient seal, the instrument will be taken as a sealed document, where there is nothing on the face of the paper to indicate the contrary . . . . A recital of the sealing or of the delivery of a written promise is not essential to its validity as a sealed contract. Id. at 143-44. Accordingly, the Court held that the twelve-year statute of limitations under C.J. 5-102 was applicable. Id. at 143, 148.