menu
  • Our Story

    • Overview
    • Careers
    • Locations
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Community Involvement
    • Firm Leadership
    • History
    • Alumni
    • Affiliations
    • Media Inquiries
    • Make a Payment
  • Our People

  • Our Insights

    • Events/CLE
    • Publications
    • News
    • Blogs
  • Our Practices & Industries

    • Business
      • Business Transitions
      • Construction
      • Corporate, Securities, and M&A
      • ERISA, Life, Health & Disability
      • Finance & Banking
      • Health Care Transactions
      • Immigration
      • Intellectual Property Transactions
      • Labor, Employment & Benefits
      • Private Investment Funds
      • Private Client Services
      • Real Estate
      • Startups & Emerging Companies
      • Tax
      • Wage & Hour
    • Litigation
      • Antitrust, Competition & Trade
      • Appellate
      • Class Actions
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Construction
      • Creditors' Rights & Bankruptcy
      • Electronic Discovery, Technology & Strategy
      • ERISA, Life, Health & Disability
      • Fiduciary Litigation
      • Financial Institutions Litigation & Investigations
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Litigation
      • International Arbitration
      • Labor, Employment & Benefits
      • Securities & Corporate Governance Litigation
      • Wage & Hour
    • Industries
      • Blockchain & Cryptocurrency
      • Food, Beverage & Hospitality
      • Government Law
      • Investigations, Compliance & White Collar
      • Japan Practice
      • Nonprofit & Social Enterprise
      • Privacy & Data Security
      • Senior Living & Long Term Care
      • Transportation
    • Services
      • COVID-19 Landlord/Tenant Response Team
      • COVID-19 Resource Center
      • Business Dispute Resolution
  • Our Locations

    • Anchorage
    • Portland
    • Seattle
  • Our Careers

    • Attorneys
    • Summer Associates
    • Professional Staff
  • Our Diversity

    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Our Story
Lane Powell Web Site
  • OUR PEOPLE
  • STORY
  • INSIGHTS
  • PRACTICES & INDUSTRIES
Search
  • 日本語
  • 中文
  • 한국어
Email this pagePrint this pagePrint to PDF

Topics

  • Business
  • Finance & Banking

Related People

  • Gregory R. Fox
  • Ryan P. McBride

Related Practices & Industries

  • Business
  • Finance & Banking
  • Financial Institutions Litigation & Investigations
  • Litigation

Additional Resources

  • Full Article (PDF)
January 8, 2015Publication

Washington Supreme Court Affirms Washington Federal v. Gentry and Confirms Lenders’ Right to Obtain Deficiency Judgments Against Guarantors Following Nonjudicial Foreclosure

The Supreme Court of the State of Washington

The Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion today affirming the right of a lender to obtain a deficiency judgment against a commercial guarantor following a nonjudicial foreclosure. Divisions One and Two of the Washington State Court of Appeals had reached contrary holdings on whether a lender could seek a deficiency judgment against a guarantor of a commercial loan following the nonjudicial foreclosure of a widely used form of deed of trust. In Washington Federal v. Gentry, 179 Wn. App. 470, 319 P.3d 823 (2014), Division One held that a lender’s right to a deficiency judgment action against a guarantor exists even where the foreclosed deed of trust secures both the borrower’s loan and the guarantor’s guaranty. In First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Cornerstone Homes & Development, LLC, 178 Wn. App. 207, 314 P.3d 420 (2013), Division Two held the opposite.

The Washington Supreme Court, in a consolidated case argued by Lane Powell, unanimously held that “guarantors of commercial loans whose own property has not been foreclosed” are not “protected from deficiency judgments under the [Deed of Trust Act] after the borrower’s property has been foreclosed,” even if the foreclosed deed of trust also secured the guarantors’ guarantees. Washington Federal v. Harvey / Washington Federal v. Gentry, No. 90078-7 (consol. w/ No. 90085-0), Slip. Op. at 6-7 (Wash. Sup. Ct. January 8, 2015). The Court noted the inapplicability of RCW 61.24.100(10) and relied on RCW 61.24.100(3)(c) and (6), which establish a clear rule regarding a guarantor’s post-foreclosure deficiency liability — i.e., a lender may obtain a deficiency judgment against a guarantor of a commercial loan, unless the guarantor granted the foreclosed deed of trust on his or her own property to secure the guaranty.

Before proceeding, please note:  If you are not a current client of Lane Powell PC, please do not include any information in this email that you or someone else considers to be confidential or secret in nature.  Prior to the establishment of a lawyer-client relationship, unsolicited emails from non-clients containing confidential or secret information cannot be protected from disclosure.

back to top
  • Our Story

    • Overview
    • Careers
    • Locations
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Community Involvement
    • Firm Leadership
    • History
    • Alumni
    • Affiliations
    • Media Inquiries
    • Make a Payment
  • Our People

    • Our Insights

      • Events/CLE
      • Publications
      • News
      • Blogs
    • Our Practices & Industries

      • Business
      • Litigation
      • Industries
      • Services
      • View All

    Blogs

    Boom: The ERISA Law Blog
    Earth & Table Law Reporter

    • Site Map
    • Disclaimer
    • Data Privacy & Security
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
    © 2023 Lane Powell PC Lane Powell & LP
    Logo, Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off.
    Sitemap
    Connect With Us
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • Linkedin
    • Vimeo
    • Make a Payment