Waivers of Defenses in Guaranties: Unconditional or Unenforceable?
The key takeaway from the appeal court's analysis is obvious. Although waiver language can be broadly written, a waiver of defenses associated with standard guaranty "absolute and unconditional" language may not, in and of itself, waive a defense based on the statute of limitations.
February 01, 2023 at 07:32 AM
8 minute read
Guaranty agreements have been a part of loan transactions dating back to ancient times. So have defenses to guaranties. As early as 300 B.C., Demosthenes, an ancient Athenian orator, in Orations 35, Against Lacritus (Loeb Classical Library (loebclassics.com)), described a loan made by Androcles to Artemon that was purportedly guaranteed by Artemon's brother, Lacritus. When Androcles sought payment from Lacritus on the guaranty, Lacritus, as a defense, denied he had guaranteed the loan. What followed were long arguments from each side, foreshadowing the battles between lenders and guarantors that have continued for centuries. As a result, guaranty agreements have evolved to include an ever-growing list of waivers of defenses by the guarantor.
Certain defenses can in fact be waived, but which ones and how those waivers must be cast to be effective has also been the source of much controversy. At issue in Hovde v. ISLA Development LLC, 51 F.4th 771 (7th Cir. 2022), a recent case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, was whether a guarantor had waived the statute of limitations as a defense to payment under his guaranty. In an October 2022 decision, the appeals court affirmed the lower court ruling that the lenders could not enforce the guaranty because the statute of limitations had in fact not been effectively waived. However, the courts had different rationales for their conclusions. The lower court found the waiver was not sufficiently explicit. But the appeals court held that the waiver as written, even if found to be explicit, waived only defenses relating to conditions to payment. In an interesting, if nuanced, distinction, it held that the statute of limitations was not a defense relating to a condition to payment. Rather, it was a defense relating to enforcement of the guaranteed obligation. Accordingly, the waiver had to relate to the enforceability of the guaranteed obligation to be effective as to the statute of limitations.
|Factual Background
The facts of this case go back as far as 2004. In that year, the guarantor, Jeffrey Riegel, formed ISLA Development, LLC, with the goal of building a condominium development on Isla Mujeres in Mexico, a Caribbean island near the vacation destination of Cancun. Between 2005 and 2007, former Wisconsin U.S. Senate candidate Eric Hovde and his brother, Steven Hovde, provided ISLA about $4.4 million for the project through a loan bearing interest at 25% per annum and maturing in 2007. Riegel personally guaranteed the loan. In 2007, the maturity date was extended to 2009. However, in August and September 2008, Riegel advised Steven Hovde via several emails that he lacked sufficient funds to proceed with the project and requested an additional advance. Hovde responded that no further advances would be forthcoming. The parties entered into a Forbearance Agreement on Nov. 5, 2008.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDistressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250