|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 6, 2002 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
2002 WI App 313 NOTICE |
|
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
|
Appeal No. |
|
Cir. Ct. No.
01-CV-257 |
|||
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
M&I Marshall & Ilsley
Bank f/k/a M&I Bank of Menomonee
Falls, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard W. Schlueter and Linda
J. Schlueter, Defendants-Respondents. |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Washington County: PATRICK J. FARAGHER, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded with directions.
Before Nettesheim, P.J., Brown and Snyder, JJ.
¶1 SNYDER, J. M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank
f/k/a M&I Bank of Menomonee Falls (M&I) appeals from a judgment of the
circuit court granting summary judgment to Richard W. Schlueter and Linda J.
Schlueter (Schlueters). M&I argues
that the circuit court erred when it held that the Schlueters, as guarantors on
a real estate note, were entitled to notice of default for failure of the
original obligors to carry property insurance on the real estate. M&I further contends that it did not as
a matter of law breach its continuous duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to provide the
Schlueters with notice of said default.
Finally, M&I claims that the circuit court improperly granted
summary judgment where there was a disputed fact pertaining to its receipt of
notice of insurance cancellation from
the original obligors’ insurance company.
We agree that the circuit court erred in awarding the Schlueters summary
judgment. We therefore reverse the
judgment of the circuit court and remand this matter for the circuit court to
enter summary judgment in favor of M&I.
FACTS
¶2 On
October 28, 1997, David S. Schlueter and Dawn M. Schlueter, son and
daughter-in-law of the Schlueters, entered into a mortgage note with
M&I. Under the terms of this
mortgage note, David and Dawn were allowed to borrow the principal sum of
$72,800 and repay the same in monthly installments over the course of sixty
months. As security for this mortgage
note, David and Dawn executed a real estate mortgage in favor of M&I on
property located in Hartford, Wisconsin.
¶3 David
and Dawn did not qualify for a mortgage on their own. In addition to the real estate mortgage, M&I required
additional assurance that the mortgage note would be paid. The Schlueters signed a Guaranty of Specific
Transaction on October 28, 1997. The
language of this Guaranty obligates the Schlueters to make payments under the
mortgage note should David and Dawn fail to pay. In addition, the Guaranty includes a paragraph entitled “Waiver”
in which the Schlueters specifically waive notice of default by David and Dawn. The Schlueters received and signed an
Explanation of Personal Obligation which explains that as guarantors, they are
obligated to repay the principal sum of $72,800, plus finance charges, in the
event of default by David and Dawn.
¶4 On
August 15, 1999, the insurance policy covering the Hartford real estate lapsed,
as evidenced by a letter dated September 8, 1999, from American Family
Insurance to David and Dawn. While
American Family claims to have sent this lapse notification to M&I, M&I
claims that it does not recall receiving any notification nor does it have a
copy of said notification. There is no
evidence that David and Dawn renewed their American Family policy or that they
obtained alternative insurance coverage.
On July 17, 2000, the Hartford real estate securing the mortgage note
burned.
¶5 Following
the fire, David and Dawn failed to make any further payments on the mortgage
note. On August 28, 2000, M&I
notified the Schlueters of David and Dawn’s default on the July and August 2000
payments. M&I sent the Schlueters
an additional notice of David and Dawn’s default on the September, October and
November 2000 payments.
¶6 M&I
then filed this lawsuit against the Schlueters as the guarantors to recover the
principal balance plus interest and costs under the terms of the mortgage note
and the Guaranty. The Schlueters
responded by arguing that as guarantors, they were entitled to receive notice
of the default resulting from the lapse of insurance coverage. M&I filed a motion for summary
judgment.
¶7 In
their response brief, the Schlueters produced a termination notice from
American Family Insurance to M&I, dated September 7, 1999, informing
M&I of the termination of insurance coverage. M&I disputed receipt of that notice. An affidavit from M&I’s retail
collection manager specifically states that he did not recall receiving such a
notification and his collection file did not contain any such notification.
¶8 The
circuit court denied M&I’s motion for summary judgment and instead granted
summary judgment to the Schlueters. The
circuit court stated, in relevant part:
For purposes of this motion, both parties assert that there are no
material disputes of fact. The court
interprets this as a concession that the presumption of mailing obtains, and
therefor the plaintiff will be charged with knowledge of the fact of
cancellation of the insurance.
M&I appeals not only to
challenge the grant of summary judgment to the Schlueters but also “the
authority of the [circuit] court to rule on summary judgment at all when a
genuine issue of material fact is in dispute as identified in the brief of the
parties.”
DISCUSSION
¶9 We
review a circuit court’s grant or denial of summary judgment de novo,
owing no deference to the trial court’s decision. Waters v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 124 Wis. 2d
275, 278, 369 N.W.2d 755 (Ct. App. 1985).
“[S]ummary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” M&I First Nat’l Bank v.
Episcopal Homes Mgmt., Inc., 195 Wis. 2d 485, 496-97, 536 N.W.2d
175 (Ct. App. 1995); see also Wis.
Stat. § 802.08(2) (1999-2000).[1] We will reverse a decision granting summary
judgment if either (1) the trial court incorrectly decided legal issues, or (2)
material facts are in dispute. Coopman
v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 179 Wis. 2d 548, 555, 508 N.W.2d 610
(Ct. App. 1993). In our review, we,
like the trial court, are prohibited from deciding issues of fact; our inquiry
is limited to a determination of whether a factual issue exists. Id.
¶10 M&I
argues that the Schlueters, as guarantors on a real estate note and mortgage,
were not entitled to notice of default for failure of the original obligors to
carry property insurance on the subject real estate. We agree.
¶11 The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of notice of default to guarantors in Bank of Sun Prairie v. Opstein, 86 Wis. 2d 669, 273 N.W.2d 279 (1979).
“Guaranties of payment ‘are absolute, not collateral promises.... Unlike the contract of an indorser, there is no condition as to demand and notice of default annexed to a contract of guaranty of payment or of performance.’” Nor is it any defense for a guarantor of payment as distinguished from a guarantor of collection that the creditor “through negligence, or lack of due diligence, lost or dissipated the collateral furnished by the debtor.”
With an absolute guarantee of payment, the law imposes no duty upon the creditor to notify the guarantor of the nonpayment of the note by the principal maker.
Id. at 678 (citations omitted; emphasis added). “[N]o notice of the default of an original promisor is required to be given a guarantor of absolute payment or performance to render him liable on the guaranty.” Farmers State Bank of Waupaca v. Hansen, 174 Wis. 100, 103, 182 N.W. 944 (1921) (citation omitted). A lender is not obligated to alert a guarantor of the original obligor’s default or the occurrence of an event of default. See id. at 103-04.
¶12 In addition, by virtue of the terms of the Guaranty, the Schlueters waived any right to notice they may or may not have had. The Guaranty of Specific Transaction states the following, in relevant part:
[T]he undersigned jointly and severally guarantee payment of the
Obligations defined below when due or, to the extent not prohibited by law, at
the time any Debtor becomes the subject of bankruptcy or other insolvency
proceedings. “Obligations” mean
indebtedness evidenced by a note or agreement payable to Lender ....
WAIVER. To the extent not prohibited by law the undersigned expressly
waive notice of the acceptance of this Guaranty, the creation of any
present or future Obligation, default under any Obligation, proceedings
to collect from Debtor or anyone else, and all diligence of collection and
presentment, demand, notice and protest and any right to disclosures from
Lender regarding the financial condition of any Debtor or guarantor of the
Obligations or the enforceability of the Obligations.
The language of the Guaranty is
clear; the Schlueters specifically waived any right to notice of default by
David and Dawn and by virtue of the terms of the contract were not entitled to
notice.
¶13 The
Schlueters agree that Opstein sets forth the general rule in
Wisconsin regarding guaranties but they contend that this general rule does not
“fully dispose of the duties between the lender and guarantor”; the Schlueters
contend that good faith and fair dealing are implied conditions of every
contract and, citing to First National Bank & Trust Co. of Racine v.
Notte, 97 Wis. 2d 207, 293 N.W.2d 530 (1980), in support, argue that
good faith and fair dealing include a duty to disclose David and Dawn’s default
in failing to maintain property insurance.[2]
¶14 First
of all, this is not a Notte case. Notte involved a material misrepresentation or
nondisclosure of a creditor during negotiations, before the guarantors entered
into the transaction. Id.
at 208. Here, there has been no showing
of any breach of good faith and fair dealing during the negotiations prior to
the transaction; consequently Notte does not apply.
¶15 Furthermore,
we agree with the Schlueters that Wisconsin law recognizes that every contract
implies good faith and fair dealing between the parties to it. See Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. D-Mart
Food Stores, Inc., 146 Wis. 2d 568, 577, 431 N.W.2d 721 (Ct. App.
1988). But Opstein makes
clear that notice of default to a guarantor is not required for good faith and
fair dealing. See Opstein,
86 Wis. 2d at 678. In addition, where
the contracting party complains of acts of the other party that are
specifically authorized in their agreement, we cannot see how there can be any
breach of good faith and fair dealing. Super
Valu Stores, 146 Wis. 2d at 577.
“Indeed, it would be a contradiction in terms to characterize an act
contemplated by the plain language of the parties’ contract as a ‘bad faith’
breach of that contract.” Id.
¶16 Because
Opstein holds that there is no duty to provide notice of default
to a guarantor and because the Schlueters specifically waived any right to
notice they may or may not have had by the terms of the Guaranty, the circuit
court erred in granting the Schlueters summary judgment instead of
M&I. M&I is entitled to summary
judgment against the Schlueters.
CONCLUSION
¶17 We
conclude that the circuit court erred when it held that the Schlueters were
entitled to notice of default for failure of the original obligors to carry
property insurance on the real estate and that M&I did not breach its duty
of good faith and fair dealing by failing to provide the Schlueters with notice
of said default. We therefore reverse
the judgment of the circuit court and remand this matter for the circuit court
to enter summary judgment in favor of M&I.
By the Court.—Judgment
reversed and cause remanded with directions.
Recommended for
publication in the official reports.
