The plaintiff bank moved for judgment against a guarantor under a written guarantee and an executed consent to judgment held in escrow.
The responding party argued, in substance, that the bank was negligent or otherwise responsible for failing to achieve an anticipated return on the sale of secured property.
The court held that the express terms of the guarantee displaced any duty of care to the guarantor regarding liquidation of the security and permitted the bank to compromise or enforce remedies in any order it chose.
Judgment was granted for $738,150 plus pre-judgment interest, with costs of $20,000 inclusive.
