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
© 2025 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 AllA Time for Action: Attorneys Must Answer MLK's Call to Defend Bar Associations and Stand for DEI Initiatives in 2025
4 minute readEphemeral Messaging Going Into 2025: The Messages May Vanish but Not the Preservation Obligations
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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