Court Opinion

ID: 9609014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:21:23.45129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:48.276015
License: Public Domain

URBIGKIT, Justice,
dissenting.
This decision brings mortgagee, as the drafter of the loan documents, more rights than it chose to claim by the written agreement. In absence of a mortgage provision impressing an obligation for deficiency after a power-of-sale foreclosure, I would hold, at least where the lender as seller under the mortgage is also the purchaser, that no deficiency rights should be created by court decision for the underbidding lender. Rights of the mortgagee should not be expanded beyond what it did obtain by agreement or may be mandated by procedural statute. The latter, of course, does not exist in Wyoming, and consequently is not applicable to this controversy. I would consequently apply to it the standard that what you get is what you bargained to receive. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Petsch, 261 F.2d 331 (10th Cir.1958); Adobe Oil & Gas Corporation v. Getter Trucking, Inc., Wyo., 676 P.2d 560 (1984); McCartney v. Malm, Wyo., 627 P.2d 1014 (1981).
Since for whatever reasons of contractual attainment the printed mortgage form as *1315used by this lender in this case did omit any deficiency judgment provision upon foreclosure under the power-of-sale statute, I would leave it with rights limited to the written bargain, and reverse the summary judgment.