May 25, 2012

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules that Mortgage Holder Can Have a Shortened Redemption Period Without Jeopardizing Collection Against Guarantor

In its July 9, 2010 decision in Bank Mutual v. S. J. Boyer Construction, Inc. (2008AP912), the Wisconsin Supreme Court rules that a mortgage holder who elects to foreclose on a mortgage using a shortened redemption period does not forfeit the right to obtain a judgment against a guarantor of the underlying mortgage debt. While the lender cannot proceed against the borrower for any deficiency due, the lender can still collect from the guarantor on the guaranty.

State foreclosure statutes allow for two different redemption periods – a longer one of twelve months (for a one-to four-family owner-occupied residence, a farm, a church, or a tax-exempt nonprofit charitable organization) or six months (for all other properties), and a shorter redemption period of six or three months, respectively. If the mortgage holder (the “mortgagee”) elects the shorter redemption period, then the mortgagee waives a deficiency judgment against “every party who is personally liable for the debt secured by the mortgage.” In Bank Mutual, the Court concludes that the phrase “personally liable for the debt” is a term of art that must be given its legal meaning, and that the term is not intended to include guarantors who guarantee a debt through a contract separate from the note creating the debt. 
 
The key to continued guarantor liability is a contract of guaranty separate from the mortgage note whose terms permit recovery even when the original borrower has no further liability for the underlying debt. A guarantor’s liability on a contract of guaranty is based upon the terms of that guaranty, and is treated as distinct from the liability of the borrower. The guarantor is liable on the guaranty contract, not on the underlying note or other obligation, and therefore the deficiency limitation of the shortened redemption period does not apply.   
 
This clarification of the foreclosure statute allows lenders to take advantage of a shortened redemption period without losing the right to collect on a guaranty unrestricted by the “anti-deficiency” language of the foreclosure law.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

Partner

Ann Smith practices in the areas of bankruptcy, commercial litigation (primarily related to lending, fraud and contract disputes), commercial transactions (including financings, asset sales, liquidations and related matters, especially involving distressed businesses) and constitutional litigation. She is regularly involved in workouts, foreclosures (including receiverships and emergency orders), replevins, bankruptcy proceedings (including motions for relief from stay, cash collateral and adequate protection matters, Chapter 11 plan confirmation matters and purchase of assets out of...

608-283-2251

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.