Ohio Practical Business Law : Columbus Ohio Business Lawyer & Attorney : Teri Rasmussen : Plunkett Cooney Law Firm : Commercial Law, Creditors, Business Formation : Columbus, Central Ohio

I'm finishing up my recent series of posts on cognovit notes and judgments with a summary of the key things to know about cognovit notes and judgments in Ohio.   

     1.  Shortcut to Judgment.  Cognovit notes provide a shortcut to judgment, allowing a creditor to take a judgment immediately (and I mean within MINUTES) of the filing of the Complaint.  No advance notice to the debtor required.  For more information on how this works, visit my Cognovit Promissory Notes Explained post.

     2.   Few States Allow.  Ohio is one of only a handful of states permitting cognovit judgmentsnat all. In fact, as far as I know, they are only enforceable in OHIO, Pennsylvaina, Maryland, Virginia and Delaware.  Visit An Examination of Confession of Judgment Statutes in the Mid-Atlantic States  for a very concise and specific summary of what is required in each of these states for a valid cognovit note.  In Indiana, it's even a Class B misdemeanor (punishable by a $1,000 fine or 180 days imprisonment)  to include cognovit language in a promissory note or to try to enforce a cog taken somewhere else like, say, Ohio. Indiana Code 34-54-4-1  

     3.  Commercial Deals ONLY.  Cognovit notes are valid ONLY in commercial transactions involving businesses and are not enforceable with respect to consumer obligations.   Ohio Rev. Code 2323(E).  

>>>>>>      The rest of these points pertain ONLY with respect to Ohio cogs.  

     4.   Follow the Statute.   DO NOT VARY IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTORY COGNOVIT WARNING.  The cognovit warning  should appear IMMEDIATELY (and I mean WITHOUT ANYTHING IN BETWEEN)  above(preferably) or below the signature line and should look EXACTLY like this for best results:

WARNING – BY SIGNING THIS PAPER YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO NOTICE AND COURT TRIAL.  IF YOU DO NOT PAY ON TIME, A COURT JUDGMENT MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU WITHOUT YOUR PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND THE POWERS OF A COURT CAN BE USED TO COLLECT FROM YOU RGARDLESS OF ANY CLAIMS YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST THE CREDITOR WHETHER FOR RETURNED GOODS, FAULTY GOODS, FAILURE ON HIS PART TO COMPLY WITH THE AGREEMENT, OR ANY OTHER CAUSE.   

     5.  Confession of Judgment Must Also Be included.  Do not forget to include the enabling language authorizing confession of judgment within the body of the promissory note, guaranty or other instrument.  If the enabling language is not included, the instrument will still be enforceable but will not be any good for taking a cognovit judgment.  Klosterman v. Turnkey-Ohio, L.L.C., 2009-Ohio-2508 (10th App. Dist.).   The statute does not specify the exact language to be used, but over time certain language has customarily come to be used in virtually every Ohio commercial note or guaranty.

      6.  Enforceable Where Signed or Where Maker Located. Cognovit judgments must be taken in (A) the County in which the cognovit note was signed; OR (B) the County in which the individual resides or the business has its principal office.  Ohio Rev. Code 2323.13(A)

     7.   Not Required to Use Business Courts.  At least for now, the existence of commercial law dockets/business courts does not require cognovit judgments to be taken by a judge of that docket  GLIC Real Estate Holding, L.L.C. v. 2014 Baltimore-Reynoldsburg Road, L.L.C., 906 N.E.2d 517, 2009-Ohio-2129 (Common Pleas-Franklin Cty)

     8.  Signing Cog Doesn't Create Attorney-Client Relationship.  No attorney client relationship is established when an Ohio attorney signs a cognovit answer on behalf of a defendant.  It is simply a ministerial act and does not subject the attorney signing the answer to any claim of unethcialconduct..  Opinion 93-3 Ohio Supreme Court Board of Commisioners on Greivancxes and Discipline,  Dibenetto v. Miller, 180 Ohio App.3d 69, 2008-Ohio-6506 (1st App. Dist.).

     9. Copies May Do.  While many Ohio courts may require or at least expect the original promissory note containing the cognovit provision to be produced, the statute does permit use of a copy.  Ohio Rev. Code 2323.13(A).  Good luck with that one - call me when you're able to get the judgment without showing the original of the note to  the judge.

       10.    Getting a Do-Over.  It does not take as much to open up a cognovit judgment thorugh a Rule 60(B) motion as it does with rexpect to other judgments.  However, you have to at least show that a meritorious defense exists, at least in theory.  Visit my previous post What It Takes to Open Up a Cog Judgment to find out more details.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

When I hear the word "indulgences", my mind immediately goes to something "sinful" and well, probably fun.  In this case, however, I'm talking about  that ubiquitous provision found in loan documents designed to allow lenders to continue to hold borrowers and gurantors liabile notwithstanding the lender's failure or inability to abide by the letter of the loan documents or to exercise all or some subset of its rights upon default in a manner saitsfactory (usually with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight) to the borrower and/or gurantor.  Does this stuff really worK?   

Suppose you have this deliquent borrower -  let's call him "B"  -- on a promissory note (though it could be any obligation) and collateral not worth enough to pay you off in full.  But then you also have this guarantor -- let's call him "G".  Somewhere along the line one of your folks messed up in that "commercial reasonable sale" thing that's supposed to happen when you repossess and liquidate collateral.  Or maybe you let a financial covenant default here and there pass for the time being.  Or perhaps you just extended the maturity date or went interest only for B for a while.  Question is whether you're still OK because you can hold G - who does have assets - liable for the obligation.

Most, if not all, bankers and their counsel would say "yes" because both the UCC and our loan docs say we can.  Which is why  Huntington National Bank v. Wallace, 2009 WL 2023891 (N.D. Ohio 2009) -- now on appeal to the Sixth Circuit and the subject of my last post -- is an important case to watch. 

In a nutshell, the Bank had allowed advances to the Borrower to fund draws on letters of credit in excess of a  "maximum amount" specified in the loan documents and the Bank was pursuing one of the guarantors,  Bank took cognovit judgment and guarantor sought relief from judgment   Federal district court held that the indulgence clause was not sufficient to preclude relief from judgment.

Initially, as a lender-oriented attorney, the case concerned me. It seemed to suggest that lenders permitting any sort of modification -- other than the most vanilla extension of time sort --would now be accepting a substantially greater risk that such forbearance would relieve any guarantor not explicitly consenting from liability. In addition, the manner in which it brushed aside the waivers contained in the “indulgence” clause as inapplicable sent a cold shiver down my spine.   And the logic of the ruling would be applicable not just to cognovit notes, but really any sort of obligation.  So, taken as a whole, if upheld by the Sixth Circuit, the decision seemed likely to convince many lenders that it simply was not in their best interests to work with delinquent borrowers.

As I've thought about it more, however, I've begun to think this decision makes more sense and is less alarming than I had first surmised.  The decision in fact makes an important distinction between the nature and extent of the obligation intended by the parties to be guaranteed on the one hand and mistakes and errors made by the lender in enforcing the guaranty on the other.  In this particular case, the guaranty was never intended to be unlimited - there was a clearly stated unambiguous cap on the amount of credit to be extended to the borrower at particular times.  In continuing to permit advances to fund letter of credit draws, the Bank exceeded this previously agreed limitation on the amount for which the guarantor had accepted responsibility for seeing was paid.

When read closely, the language itself – and certainly the concept originally underlying inclusion of such a clause – is about the consequences of the Bank’s inaction or failure to take appropriate steps to ensure the obligation guaranteed could be satisfied from sources other than the guarantor. When viewed from this perspective, the decision leaves largely intact a lender’s ability to rely on indulgence clauses with respect to events and actions occurring during the course of a workout situation.  It is only a lender’s decision to continue extending credit to the borrower beyond an explicitly agreed–upon point that becomes a problem.

Granted, the ruling is still worrisome.  In asset-based lending, a lender may unknowingly extend credit beyond the “availability” permitted pursuant to a borrowing base calculation formula.  And in the Wallace case, the Bank was obligated to honor letters of credit previously issued and really did not have the ability to refuse to make further advances.

What also makes things a bit problematic for me in this case is that the “cap” in question was only for a very short, almost temporary, period of time and was substantially less than it was at other times.  Had the events occurred but a couple of months earlier or later, the cap would not have come into play.

For me, the take-away lessons for now from this case are:

•  If at all possible, obtain guarantor consent to any modifications or waivers at the time the modifications are made or waivers given.  I already do this anyway, but now it will be even more important.
•  If a lender wants the guaranty to truly be unlimited and/or cover over-advances, the guaranty should say so very explicitly.
• Problems arising due to lack of perfection, release of collateral or other obligors, or other events and circumstances connected with an aspect of the lending relationship that do not pertain to the amount advanced are probably still within the protection of indulgence clauses.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

How would Peanuts’ Linus manage without his trusty security blanket? Depending on the result, the Sixth Circuit reaches in a recently appealed cognovit judgment case, financial institutions such as banks and others relying on cognovit notes, and perhaps ordinary promissory notes as well, may well have to face a similar question.

Every guaranty I’ve seen has some variation of what is sometimes called an “indulgence” clause. These provisions essentially say that a guaranty remains in effect even if the Bank waives a default by the primary obligor or errs in its collection efforts. Now a federal district court, applying Ohio law, has snatched this security blanket away, saying that such a clause does not allow the lender to ignore the credit terms of a loan with impunity. 

In Huntington National Bank v. Wallace, 2009 WL 2023891 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (Case No.09CV408, Carr, J.), decided August 19, 2009, the defendant guarantor alleged he had a meritorious defense justifying vacation of the cognovit judgment taken against him. His argument was that because the Bank made a “material alteration” to the terms of his guaranty by continuing to allow advances even though the amount outstanding exceeded the prescribed “maximum amount”, his guaranty obligation was rendered invalid. 

The Bank has now appealed the case to the Sixth Circuit (Case No. 09-4172).  If upheld, the decision may have far reaching consequences beyond cognovit notes.  The district court decision suggests that the ONLY modification to an obligation that a lender may comfortably do is an extension of time unless the guarantor agrees.  It could also be taken as meaning that even if the guarntor consents, such modifications would release the guarantor of all liability

Factual Background

The underlying fact scenario is a common one. In August 2007, a company known as Bellepointe entered into a First Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement “Loan Agreement”) with the Bank. The Loan Agreement governed three separate obligations – a term note, a line of credit, and a “Guidance Line” involving draws on letters of credit. Michael Wallace (“Wallace”), the father of the company’s owner, executed a guaranty of Bellepointe’s indebtedness to the Bank; the son also executed a guaranty, but the case pertains only to the father’s guaranty.

The guaranty excluded any liability for the term loan indebtedness and also capped the maximum amount of liability with respect to the Line of Credit. The crux of the case focused on the proper interpretation of certain language found in the Loan Agreement and the Guidance Line cognovit note, to wit: 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the maximum amount available under the Guidance Line shall be as follows:

from the date hereof through and including 11/30/07 - $865,000

12/1/07 through and including 12/31/07 - $250,000

1/1/08 and thereafter - $550,000      

These provisions obviously required a substantial reduction in the amount outstanding as of December 1, 2007. It is not altogether uncommon for lines of credit to require a substantial reduction in the amount outstanding at least once a year. 

Procedural History

Procedurally, the case is a bit complicated. Apparently there was some discussion back and forth between Wallace and the Bank concerning his liability prior to any lawsuit being filed. When those talks broke down, Wallace filed a declaratory judgment action in the Southern District of Ohio federal district court against the Bank on February 11, 2009. Two days later, the Bank took a cognovit judgment against Wallace in Lucas County Common Pleas Court. The Bank said it had no knowledge of the declaratory judgment action when it took the cognovit judgment. 

Wallace promptly removed the state court cognovit judgment action to federal district court for the Northern District of Ohio, apparently on diversity grounds that he was a resident of Florida, and sought relief from judgment. After the Northern District federal court granted the motion to vacate the cognovit judgment, the Bank appealed to the Sixth Circuit where the case is now pending. It appears likely that the Southern District declaratory judgment action will be consolidated with the pending Northern District cognovit action.

The Decision 

Wallace alleged that the Bank continued to make advances on the Guidance Line in December 2007 even though Bellepointe had failed to reduce the amount outstanding as required.  Consequently, he contended that the Bank’s actions caused a “material alteration” in the nature of his guaranty obligation, thereby relieving him of liability under his guaranty. The Bank did not dispute that the advannces exceeded the "maximum amount."  However,it countered by pointing out that its loan documents had one of those “indulgence clauses” which stated:

Guarantor hereby promises that if one or more of the Obligations are not paid promptly when due, he will pay the Obligations to Bank, irrespective of any action or lack of action on the Bank's part in connection with the acquisition, perfection, possession, enforcement or disposition of any or all Obligations....   Guarantor agrees that no extension of time, whether one or more, nor any other indulgence granted to [sic] Bank by [sic] Debtor, or to any other gurantor, or any of them, and no omission or delay on Bank's part in exercising the right against, or in taking any action to collect from or pursue Bank's remedies against Debtor or any other guarantor, or any of them, will release, discharge or modify the duties of guarantor hereunder.

In addition, the Bank insisted that it was obligated to pay the draws on outstanding letters of credit in any event and that the definition of “advances” used in the line of credit differed from the definition of “maximum amount available” for precisely this reason. It also argued that the “indulgence” provisions in Wallace’s guaranty allowed it to ignore Bellepointe’s default in any event.  

So what happened? The federal district court agreed that the provisions of the loan documents did allow the Bank to continue making advances in December 2007. However, the court also noted that “Wallace’s burden is only to allege a meritorious defense, not to prove that he will prevail.” It went on to say:

Even if Wallace had initially failed to allege sufficient facts to support his defense, he has subsequently submitted an affidavit describing the above referenced facts, Wallace alleged sufficient facts for this court to evaluate whether his defense is meritorious.

And the reason? The Court cited Toland v. Key Bank of Wyoming, 847 P.2d 540 (1993) and Frost National Bank v. Burge, 29 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. App. 2000) for the proposition that “’indulgence’ is limited to extensions of time for payment and contract terms permitting indulgences do not waive suretyship defenses.” That’s it!  Really isn’t any further analysis or discussion. 

What IS interesting and informative are the briefs of the parties filed in the federal distriuct court case.  Leaving out exhibits, but including affidavits,here they are:

• Wallace's Motion to Vacate
• Bank's Responsive Memo in Opposition
• Wallace's Reply
• Bank's Sur-reply

Now I think the district court got this wrong and I’d really have appreciated a little further analysis of the pertinent provisions in the loan documents so I could fully understand the Court’s reasoning.  However, I also think the Sixth Circuit proceedings will be rather interesting to follow in the months ahead for lender attorneys everywhere. I’ll share my thoughts about the decision in more detail in my next post. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks