Legal Opinion

Decorah State Bank v. Zidlicky

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided July 20, 1988No. 87-1036PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HARRIS, Justice.

In this mortgage foreclosure action the plaintiff bank contends that a future advances clause served to obligate both defendants on a subsequent promissory note. The trial court held the clause was not enforceable against the defendant wife. We agree.

Defendants Arthur M. Zidlicky and Ga-triel M. Zidlicky are husband and wife. In 1973, while they were engaged in farming, they signed a document entitled “Spouse’s Joinder In and Guarantee of Indebtedness.” The purpose was to allow either defendant to sign promissory notes binding both of them to the indebtedness. The document…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Freese Leasing, Inc. v. Union Trust & Savings Bank, StanwoodSupreme Court of Iowa · 1977
  2. Emporia State Bank & Trust Co. v. MounkesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1974
  3. Lyon v. WillieSupreme Court of Iowa · 1980
  4. Farmers Trust & Savings Bank v. ManningSupreme Court of Iowa · 1981
  5. Merchants Mutual Bonding Co. v. UnderbergSupreme Court of Iowa · 1980

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Dodd v. SteeleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  2. National Bank of Waterloo v. MoellerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1989
  3. Baratta v. Polk County Health Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1999
  4. Bill Grunder's Sons Construction, Inc. v. GanzerSupreme Court of Iowa · 2004
  5. In Re StreeperUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa · 1993

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API