Opinion ID: 653233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Collateral

Text: 36 The Delongs further contend that, in the letter giving them notice that it was exercising its rights with respect to the collateral, Alaska National represented that it would pursue collection under the guaranty if, and only if, it did not realize enough from the sale of the collateral to satisfy the amount owing. (Appellants' Opening Br. at 33.) As the FDIC points out, the letter says no such thing. Appellants apparently refer to a portion of the letter which states: Please be advised, the individual guarantors of this debt will be liable for any deficiency remaining on the obligation after the sale of the collateral. (E.R. at 149.) 37 In any event, the guarantee signed by the DeLongs unequivocally accorded the bank the right to proceed against them regardless of whether it had exhaust[ed] its recourse ... on the collateral. (Id. at 58.) For the reasons discussed above, under D'Oench, Duhme, even if there were extrinsic evidence of a different understanding between the parties concerning the collateral, such a side agreement would not be enforceable against the FDIC.