Legal Opinion
Moening v. Alaska Mutual Bank
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided February 26, 1988No. S-1980PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
COMPTON, Justice.
This appeal presents three questions. The first question is whether a secured creditor initially may ignore the security and sue for a personal judgment on the underlying debt, absent an agreement to the contrary. The second is whether the creditor agreed to limit its remedy to foreclosure of the security. The third is whether the suit on the debt extinguishes the security as a matter of law.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Harold Moening and Ronald Rivard became business associates in 1983. Prior to their association, Rivard was the sole shareholder of Quest…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Klondike, Inc. v. BlairDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968
- Laclede Investment Corp. v. KaiserMissouri Court of Appeals · 1980
- Suber v. Alaska State Bond CommitteeAlaska Supreme Court · 1966
- In Re Foreclosure of Sutton Investments, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Norwood Realty Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Fireman's Fund Mortgage Corp. v. Allstate Insurance Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1992
- Szego v. Kingsley AnyanwutakuDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- S & B Mining Co. v. Northern Commercial Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1991
- Bradford v. First National Bank of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
- Osbourne v. BuckmanAlaska Supreme Court · 1999
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.