Swanson v. Krenik
Alaska Supreme Court
868 P.2d 297 (1994)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
In 1977, Thomas and Leila Krenik (defendants) executed a deed of trust to secure a bank's loan of money for the purchase of real property. In 1981, the Kreniks sold the property to Marie Swanson (plaintiff), who assumed the Kreniks' loan and gave them a second deed of trust on the property. In 1983, Swanson sold the property to Ray Rush and Howard Luther, Jr., who also assumed the Kreniks' loan, and who gave Swanson a third deed of trust on the property. The 1983 sale contract stipulated that the Kreniks, Swanson, Rush, and Luther were jointly and severally bound to repay the bank's loan, but the contract also stated that it did not change the then-existing relative liability of the Kreniks and Swanson. In 1986, Rush and Luther defaulted on the loan, and in 1988, the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings against the Kreniks, Swanson, Rush, and Luther. The trial court permitted the bank to foreclose on the property, but the property sold for less than the loan amount, leaving the bank with a $1,173,992 deficiency. Rush and Luther had declared bankruptcy in 1989, so they could not make up this deficiency. Swanson counterclaimed against the Kreniks, contending that they were her co-sureties on the loan and therefore shared her liability for any deficiency judgment in favor of the bank. The court ruled for the Kreniks, and Swanson appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.