Court Opinion

ID: 9789168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:29:29.006939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:20.260458
License: Public Domain

Beier, J.,
dissenting: I agree with my colleagues that a belt and suspenders provide pants more security than a belt or suspenders. Likewise, a lender maximizes security by including both an explicit acceleration clause and a separate, explicit anti-waiver clause in a promissory note. Relying on one clause to do double duty may be more risky; nevertheless, the plain language of this clause discharged such a duty in these circumstances. An implied waiver cannot defeat it. I understand the majority’s inclination to encourage what it believes to be precision and thus predictability in lending relationships. I simply do not believe it necessitates the result reached in this case.
I would reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the district court.