Court Opinion

ID: 9884642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:04:40.092893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:40.000249
License: Public Domain

ROBB, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority declines to adopt Lois' reasoning that the Bank waived the opportunity to assert the mortgages secured the guaranty because the Bank marked the guaranty "unsecured." I agree with Lois and thus, must respectfully dissent.
I agree that the dragnet clauses in the mortgages could have attached the mortgages to the later-executed guaranty, as the language of the clauses is quite broad. See Op. at 385. However, the mere fact that they could have does not necessarily mean that they have to. The dragnet clause gives priority in future advances to the Bank if the Bank desires, but not does require it. That the Bank marked the guaranty "unsecured" manifests an affirmative intention not to attach the mortgages. Under these cireumstances, I would hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the Bank.