CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC
Arizona Supreme Court
341 P.3d 452, 236 Ariz. 410 (2014)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
MidFirst Bank loaned Loop 101, LLC (Loop) (defendant) $15.6 million to build an office building. The promissory note was secured by a deed of trust and guaranteed by four individuals. Loop and the guarantors expressly waived their statutory right to have the fair market value of the property credited against the amount owed on the note if a deficiency judgment occurred. When $11.2 million was owed on the loan, Loop defaulted, and MidFirst initiated a nonjudicial foreclosure. CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC (CSA) (plaintiff) was assigned MidFirst Bank’s rights under the loan and purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for $6.15 million although the property’s fair market value was $12.5 million. CSA then sued Loop and the guarantors for a $5 million deficiency judgment that equaled the amount remaining on the loan minus the purchase price. Loop and the guarantors counterclaimed against CSA for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. CSA moved to dismiss because the note expressly waived the right to offset the amount owed with the fair market value. The superior court denied this motion, holding that parties may not waive this right, and ruled that no deficiency existed because the property’s fair market value was greater than the amount owed on the loan. The court of appeals affirmed this holding. CSA appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bales, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
