anti-deficiency

Anti-Deficiency Statutes and the One-Action Rule

Cross-jurisdiction doctrine page. Legal information, not legal advice. Last verified: 2026-06-02.

What it is

When a lender forecloses on a mortgage and the property sells for less than the outstanding loan balance, the shortfall is called a deficiency. Example: a borrower owes $350,000,thepropertysellsatforeclosurefor$270,000, and the deficiency is $80,000. Without protection, the lender may sue the borrower for that gap — obtaining a deficiency judgment — and then collect like any other money judgment (wage garnishment, bank levy, additional liens).

Anti-deficiency statutes are state laws that prohibit or limit deficiency judgments in specified circumstances. They vary enormously: some states bar deficiency after any non-judicial foreclosure on residential property; others bar it only for purchase-money mortgages (the loan used to buy the property); some simply require the lender to credit the fair market value of the property (not the fire-sale price) before computing the gap; and a substantial minority of states permit deficiency judgments freely after judicial foreclosure.

The one-action rule (prominent in California but present in variant forms elsewhere) is a related doctrine that forces a secured lender to choose a single legal remedy — foreclosing on the security OR suing personally — and prohibits splitting those claims across multiple proceedings.

These doctrines matter to surplus-recovery practitioners because: (a) if a deficiency judgment was entered before the surplus-funds were distributed, the judgment-creditor lender may hold a lien that ranks in the distribution waterfall; and (b) the availability of deficiency relief fundamentally affects whether lenders choose judicial or non-judicial foreclosure, which in turn determines how surplus funds arise and are claimed.

The governing framework

Federal floor: no constitutional anti-deficiency right

Unlike surplus equity (governed by tyler-v-hennepin-county and the Fifth Amendment Taking Clause), there is no federal constitutional bar on deficiency judgments. Anti-deficiency protection is a creature of state law entirely. Congress has enacted limited protections in some contexts (e.g., FIRREA-era rules for Resolution Trust Corporation), but the doctrinal map is 50 state experiments.

Two analytical axes

Every state’s rule can be plotted on two axes:

1. Trigger axis — does protection attach based on loan type (purchase-money, seller-financed, owner-occupied residential, ≤ certain acreage) or foreclosure method (non-judicial/power-of-sale vs. judicial), or both?

2. Remedy axis — is deficiency completely barred, or merely limited (e.g., capped at the difference between debt and fair market value rather than the distressed sale price)?

States that use the non-judicial foreclosure route as the trigger (California, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Montana) implicitly create an election of remedies: the lender who chooses the faster, cheaper non-judicial path trades away the right to pursue a deficiency. The lender who wants a deficiency must use the slower, costlier judicial route.

Deficiency calculation: the fair-market-value credit

Even where deficiency judgments are allowed, most states require the court to credit the fair market value of the foreclosed property (determined at hearing) against the debt — not merely the depressed foreclosure sale price. This prevents lenders from purchasing the property at a chilled price at their own sale and then collecting a fully inflated deficiency.

• California CCP § 580a: after a non-judicial (trustee’s sale) foreclosure, a lender who separately seeks a deficiency judgment on the note must bring the action within three months of the trustee’s sale, and the court may render judgment for no more than the amount by which the debt exceeded “the fair market value of the real property…at the time of sale.” The statute’s operative language is “deed of trust or mortgage with power of sale…following the exercise of the power of sale” — i.e., it governs the non-judicial track, not judicial foreclosure. The judicial deficiency track is § 726 (fair-value hearing at the time of sale). (Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=580a , retrieved 2026-06-02.)
• Texas Prop. Code § 51.003: any defendant may ask the court to determine fair market value; if FMV exceeds the sale price, the borrower receives an offset equal to the difference. Action must be filed within two years of the sale. (Source: https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._prop._code_section_51.003 , retrieved 2026-06-01.)
• Nevada NRS 40.455–40.457: deficiency is the lesser of (debt − FMV) or (debt − sale price); the court must hold a hearing and may appoint an appraiser. (Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/chapter-40/statute-40-455/ , retrieved 2026-06-01.)
• Minnesota Minn. Stat. § 582.30: the jury-trial / FMV requirement applies specifically to agricultural property mortgages foreclosed judicially. Subdivisions 3 (mortgages entered after March 22, 1986) and 5 (mortgages entered on or before March 22, 1986) both require that deficiency actions on agricultural property be filed within 90 days of the foreclosure sale, with all fact issues — including fair market value — tried by a jury; the property may not be presumed to have sold for FMV. This jury-trial protection does not extend to non-agricultural (e.g., residential) judicial foreclosures generally. (Source: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/582.30 , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

The California system in depth: one-action rule + anti-deficiency

California’s framework is the most studied because it is the most internally consistent and the most frequently litigated. Three interlocking statutes govern:

CCP § 726 — the one-action rule

“There can be but one form of action for the recovery of any debt or the enforcement of any right secured by a mortgage upon real property.” (Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=726 , retrieved 2026-06-01.)

The statute requires the lender to exhaust the security first before pursuing personal liability (“security-first” rule). If a lender sues on the note without first foreclosing, it waives its security interest. The California Supreme Court confirmed in Walker v. Community Bank, 10 Cal.3d 729 (1974), that a creditor who pursues the personal action and fails to foreclose the security thereby waives the lien. (Source: case discussed at https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/walker-v-community-bank-27792 ; see also Seyfarth Shaw analysis at https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insights/when-the-workout-doesnt-work-enforcement-of-commercial-mortgage-loans-in-california-part-3-one-action-rule-and-anti-deficiency-protections.html , retrieved 2026-06-01.)

Election of remedies in practice. A lender holds three potential actions: (1) non-judicial (trustee’s) sale; (2) judicial foreclosure + deficiency; or (3) action on the note alone. Choosing any one bars the others. Practically:

• Non-judicial sale — fast (roughly 4 months), cheap, no deficiency against the borrower (§ 580d is an absolute bar). § 580a provides an FMV-credit framework and 3-month filing window for deficiency actions after a non-judicial sale, but § 580d supersedes it as to the borrower; § 580a’s practical function post-non-judicial sale is primarily against guarantors (subject to the sham- guaranty doctrine and estoppel principles from Union Bank v. Gradsky).
• Judicial foreclosure — slow (18+ months), expensive, deficiency potentially available; the court conducts a fair-value hearing at the time of sale under § 726. (§ 580a does not apply to judicial foreclosures — it governs the non-judicial track only.)
• Sue on note — waives the real-property security.

The election is typically made at the moment of initiating the non-judicial process; once the trustee’s deed is recorded, § 580d forecloses the deficiency path entirely.

CCP § 580b — purchase-money anti-deficiency

No deficiency judgment shall lie:

• Under a mortgage or deed of trust given to the vendor (seller) to secure the purchase price;
• Under a deed of trust on a dwelling of not more than four units given to a lender (not the seller) whose loan was used to pay all or part of the purchase price — a “purchase money loan.”

(Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=580b , retrieved 2026-06-01.)

The § 580b protection cannot be waived, applies regardless of whether the foreclosure is judicial or non-judicial, and extends to piggyback loans originated simultaneously as part of the same purchase transaction. Refinances are covered only to the extent the new principal does not exceed amounts applied to the original purchase obligation (§ 580b(b), eff. 2013).

CCP § 580d — non-judicial foreclosure bar

“No deficiency shall be owed or collected, and no deficiency judgment shall be rendered for a deficiency on a note secured by a deed of trust or mortgage on real property” when the property was sold through the trustee’s power-of-sale mechanism. (Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=580d. , retrieved 2026-06-01.) Last amended Stats. 2022, Ch. 452, Sec. 38 (SB 1498).

The combined effect: a California residential borrower who took a purchase-money loan on a 1–4 unit owner-occupied dwelling is doubly protected — § 580b bars deficiency regardless of foreclosure method; § 580d bars deficiency after any non-judicial sale regardless of loan type. Deficiency exposure in California is limited to: (a) non-purchase-money loans where the lender chooses the judicial foreclosure route (§ 726 fair-value hearing). After a non-judicial sale, § 580d absolutely bars deficiency against the borrower — § 580a does not override this; its practical role post-non-judicial sale is against guarantors (with limits), not the borrower.

Arizona: the 2.5-acre residential rule

A.R.S. § 33-814(G): “If trust property of two and one-half acres or less which is limited to and utilized for either a single one-family or a single two-family dwelling is sold pursuant to the trustee’s power of sale, no action may be maintained to recover any difference between the amount obtained by sale and the amount of the indebtedness and any interest, costs and expenses.” (Source: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/33/00814.htm , retrieved 2026-06-01.)

A.R.S. § 33-814(H) (eff. 2015): the protection does not apply to deeds of trust originated after December 31, 2014 on builder-owned property, substantially incomplete structures, or dwellings never actually occupied.

Key contrasts with California:

• Arizona’s bar is triggered by property size and use, not by whether the loan was purchase-money; it covers HELOCs and cash-out refinances as long as the property qualifies.
• It applies only after a non-judicial trustee’s sale; judicial foreclosure allows deficiency.
• Deficiency actions on qualifying property must still be brought within 90 days of the trustee’s sale (§ 33-814(A)) — but subsection (G) bars the action entirely.

Texas: recourse allowed, with a fairness floor

Texas has no general anti-deficiency statute for residential mortgages. A lender who forecloses non-judicially under the deed-of-trust power-of-sale (Tex. Prop. Code § 51.002) may still pursue a deficiency, subject to:

1. 2-year deadline: the action must be filed within two years of the foreclosure sale (§ 51.003(a)).
2. Fair market value offset: any defendant may ask the court to determine FMV as of the sale date; if FMV > sale price, the defendant receives an offset equal to the difference, reduced by any liens not extinguished by the foreclosure (§ 51.003(b)–(c)).
3. Mortgage insurance credit: any funds received by the lender from a private guaranty insurer must be credited to the borrower before the deficiency is computed (§ 51.003(d)).
4. Waivability: unlike California’s § 580b, Texas § 51.003 protections are waivable — lenders now routinely insert § 51.003 waivers in commercial loan documents. (Source: https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._prop._code_section_51.003 , retrieved 2026-06-01.)

Florida: judicial deficiency with a 1-year window

Florida is a judicial foreclosure state; non-judicial foreclosure does not exist for standard mortgage liens. After the foreclosure judgment, the lender may pursue a deficiency, subject to:

• Fair market value cap (Fla. Stat. § 702.06): for owner-occupied residential property (1–4 family dwelling receiving homestead exemption), the deficiency may not exceed the difference between the judgment amount and the property’s fair market value on the date of sale — not the sale price. (Source: https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0702/Sections/0702.06.html , retrieved 2026-06-01.)
• 1-year statute of limitations (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(6)(h)): “An action to enforce a claim of a deficiency related to a note secured by a mortgage against a residential property that is a one-family to four-family dwelling unit. The limitations period shall commence on the day after the certificate is issued by the clerk of court or the day after the mortgagee accepts a deed in lieu of foreclosure.” Applies to foreclosures on or after July 1, 2013. (Source: https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2024/95.11 , retrieved 2026-06-01.)
• Court discretion: deficiency is “within the sound discretion of the court” (§ 702.06). Courts have broad authority to grant or deny.

Florida does not have anti-deficiency protection for non-residential or non-homestead properties, and the lender may pursue a separate common-law action unless the foreclosure court already adjudicated the deficiency.

How jurisdictions diverge

The table below maps the primary protection patterns. Statements sourced as noted; unsourced assertions carry needs_verification.

Pattern	States	Key Trigger	Notes / Statute
Full bar after any non-judicial foreclosure	California (580d), Washington (RCW 61.24.100), Oregon (ORS 86.797), Alaska (AS 34.20.100 — needs_verification), Montana (MCA 71-1-317, STFA — needs_verification)	Foreclosure method	CA also bars deficiency on purchase-money regardless of method (580b). WA carves out commercial loans (post-1998). OR applies to residential trust deeds. Alaska and Montana statutes not retrieved against primary source.
Bar after non-judicial, limited by size/use	Arizona (A.R.S. § 33-814(G))	≤ 2.5 acres, 1–2 family, occupied	Covers HELOCs if property qualifies; judicial foreclosure can yield deficiency
Bar on purchase-money / seller-financed loans only	California (CCP 580b), North Carolina (NCGS 45-21.38)	Loan type: purchase price	CA: cannot be waived; NC: applies to any property type (commercial, second homes), not just residences
Bar after non-judicial, no deficiency if redemption period applies	Minnesota (§ 582.30 subd. 2), Iowa (Code § 654.26 — needs_verification)	Foreclosure method + redemption period	MN: 6-month or 5-week redemption period. IA: nonjudicial or voluntary foreclosure without redemption bars deficiency (needs_verification — Iowa statute not retrieved against primary source).
Deficiency allowed but capped at FMV offset	Texas (§ 51.003), Nevada (NRS 40.455), Florida (§ 702.06 + § 95.11(6)(h)), Minnesota (§ 582.30 subds. 3 & 5, agricultural property / judicial)	None — deficiency recourse allowed; fairness floor applied	TX: 2-yr deadline; waivable. NV: hearing required; appraiser may be appointed. FL: 1-yr window for residential 1–4 family; court discretion. MN jury-trial/FMV cap applies only to agricultural property judicial foreclosures (subds. 3 & 5).
Deficiency freely allowed	New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and most states without a special statute	No restriction	Lender may recover full gap between judgment amount and sale price; some states require confirmation of sale

Notable structural points

• Washington’s commercial carve-out. RCW 61.24.100 bars deficiency after a non-judicial trustee’s sale against borrowers and guarantors, but for commercial loans executed after June 11, 1998, the lender may still pursue deficiency for waste, wrongful retention of rents, or against guarantors who received proper notice — within one year of the trustee’s sale. (Source: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=61.24.100 , retrieved 2026-06-01.)

• Oregon’s residential limitation. ORS 86.797 bars deficiency after a trustee’s sale or judicial foreclosure of a residential trust deed; related obligations created simultaneously as part of the same transaction by the same beneficiary are also covered. Guarantors may still be pursued after judicial foreclosure, but guarantors cannot recover deficiencies from the original borrower or successors. (Source: https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_86.797 , retrieved 2026-06-01.)

• North Carolina’s seller-finance rule. NCGS § 45-21.38 abolishes deficiency judgments where the mortgage or deed of trust was given to the vendor to secure the balance of the purchase price, regardless of property type (residential, commercial, agricultural). The note must state on its face that it is a purchase-money transaction. Applies after both power-of-sale and judicial foreclosure. (Source: https://ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_45/GS_45-21.38.html , retrieved 2026-06-01.)

• California: guarantors not protected. CCP §§ 580b(c) and 580d(b) expressly preserve liability for guarantors, pledgors, or other sureties. A borrower is protected; a guarantor who did not take title is not. (Sources: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, retrieved 2026-06-01.)

• Minnesota’s fair-market-value jury trial requirement — agricultural property only. § 582.30 subdivisions 3 and 5 require the deficiency to be computed against FMV determined by a jury trial, but only for mortgages on property used in agricultural production that are foreclosed judicially. The property may not be presumed to have sold at FMV, and commercial reasonableness of the sale is a court inquiry. This protection does not apply to non-agricultural residential or commercial judicial foreclosures generally. (Source: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/582.30 , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Relevance to surplus recovery

Anti-deficiency law intersects surplus-funds recovery in three ways:

1. Deficiency judgment as a lien on surplus

In states that allow deficiency judgments, a lender who obtained a deficiency judgment before the surplus distribution date may hold a judgment lien that attaches to the borrower’s real and personal property — including any interest in surplus proceeds. If the surplus is distributed to the former owner and the deficiency judgment has already been docketed in the county where the funds are held, the lender may levy on the distribution.

The operative question for a surplus-recovery agent is: has a deficiency judgment been entered and does it antedate the distribution? If yes, the lender’s judgment lien may rank above the owner’s residual claim in the waterfall.

2. Non-recourse foreclosure eliminates this risk

In non-judicial foreclosure states with a complete anti-deficiency bar (California, Washington, Oregon, Alaska), the lender has no deficiency claim after a trustee’s sale. The surplus belongs entirely to junior lienholders and the former owner in priority order. There is no deficiency-judgment lien to contend with.

3. The waterfall in judicial-deficiency states

In states like Florida, New York, and Texas, the distribution sequence from a sheriff-sale is:

1. Costs of sale (court fees, advertising, sheriff/clerk commission)
2. Senior lienholder — the foreclosing mortgagee’s judgment amount (principal, interest, attorney fees, costs)
3. Junior lienholders in recorded priority order (second mortgages, HOA assessments, judgment liens recorded before the foreclosure — note: junior liens junior to the foreclosing lien are extinguished by the sale; the proceeds are their substitute)
4. Former owner’s residue

If the first-lien foreclosure leaves a surplus, that surplus is not the deficiency of the first-lien lender (who was fully paid); it is available to junior interests. The first-lien lender’s deficiency, if any, typically exists only when the property sold for less than its debt. The surplus case and the deficiency case are mutually exclusive as to the first-lien holder: if there is a surplus, there is no first-lien deficiency.

A junior lienholder who was extinguished by the first-lien foreclosure may have a claim to the surplus; if the junior lien balance exceeds the surplus share, that lienholder may separately pursue a deficiency against the borrower (subject to anti-deficiency protections and any applicable statute of limitations).

Leading cases

• Walker v. Community Bank, 10 Cal.3d 729 (Cal. 1974) — confirmed the California one-action / security-first rule: a lender who sues on the note without first foreclosing the security waives the security interest. (Source: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/walker-v-community-bank-27792 , retrieved 2026-06-01.)
• Union Bank v. Gradsky, 265 Cal.App.2d 40 (Cal. App. 1968) — held that a creditor who conducts a non-judicial sale cannot recover from a guarantor the unpaid balance on the note, because § 580d’s bar operates to prevent both the creditor and the guarantor from obtaining any deficiency judgment against the debtor; estoppel principles preclude enforcement of the guaranty in these circumstances. Foundation case for the sham-guaranty doctrine. (Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/265/40.html , retrieved 2026-06-02.)
• California one-action rule post-2020 expansion — needs_verification — the California Supreme Court issued additional holdings in commercial-loan contexts regarding the scope of § 726; specific citations not retrieved.
• Arizona deficiency cases — the Arizona Supreme Court has issued rulings clarifying A.R.S. § 33-814 (exact citations not retrieved; needs_verification).

Practical playbook

For former owners in non-judicial foreclosure states (CA, WA, OR, AK, MT): The lender almost certainly has no deficiency claim after a trustee’s sale. Confirm the foreclosure was non-judicial (look for the trustee’s deed upon sale, not a sheriff’s deed or court judgment). If confirmed, the surplus recovery claim faces no deficiency-judgment offset.

For former owners in judicial foreclosure states (FL, NY, NJ, IL, OH, PA): Determine whether a deficiency motion was filed. In Florida, the lender had one year from the certificate of title; after that, the right expires. In New York and most eastern states, the deficiency can be sought in the same foreclosure action or within the general contract statute of limitations (varies by state). If no deficiency judgment was entered, the owner’s residual surplus claim is unencumbered by it.

For surplus-recovery agents verifying the claim waterfall:

1. Identify the foreclosure method (judicial vs. non-judicial) and the state.
2. Check whether the foreclosing lender was paid in full from the sale proceeds (if yes, no first-lien deficiency judgment exists and none can be asserted against the surplus).
3. Search the docket and county judgment index for any deficiency judgment entered by a junior lienholder whose lien was extinguished. If found, that judgment may rank above the owner’s residual in the waterfall.
4. Confirm whether state anti-deficiency law forecloses any deficiency action (using the table above).

For lenders deciding between judicial and non-judicial foreclosure: In California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, choosing the non-judicial path permanently waives deficiency rights. If the outstanding balance substantially exceeds the property’s value and the lender can realistically collect a judgment from the borrower, judicial foreclosure — while slower — preserves the deficiency claim (subject to FMV credits). Most residential lenders choose non-judicial for speed; most commercial lenders evaluate both paths.

Cross-links

surplus-funds, sheriff-sale, right-of-redemption, due-process-notice, tyler-v-hennepin-county, third-party-recovery-rules

Sources

• {statute, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=726, retrieved 2026-06-01} — CCP § 726: California one-action rule text — “there can be but one form of action.”
• {statute, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=580b, retrieved 2026-06-01} — CCP § 580b: purchase-money anti-deficiency; seller-financed and lender purchase-money loans on 1–4 family dwellings; cannot be waived; amended 2015.
• {statute, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=580d., retrieved 2026-06-01} — CCP § 580d: complete bar on deficiency after non-judicial (power of sale) foreclosure; last amended SB 1498 (2022).
• {statute, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=580a, retrieved 2026-06-02} — CCP § 580a: governs deficiency judgment after NON-JUDICIAL (power-of-sale / trustee’s sale) foreclosure; operative language is “deed of trust or mortgage with power of sale…following the exercise of the power of sale”; lender must bring action within 3 months of trustee’s sale; court applies FMV credit. Does NOT apply to judicial foreclosure (judicial deficiency track is § 726).
• {statute, https://www.azleg.gov/ars/33/00814.htm, retrieved 2026-06-01} — A.R.S. § 33-814(G): Arizona anti-deficiency for trustee’s sale on ≤2.5-acre 1–2 family dwelling; subsection (H) exceptions for builder-owned/incomplete/never-occupied (eff. 2015).
• {statute, https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._prop._code_section_51.003, retrieved 2026-06-01} — Tex. Prop. Code § 51.003: deficiency after non-judicial foreclosure; 2-year deadline; FMV offset on request; mortgage insurance credit; waivable.
• {statute, https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0702/Sections/0702.06.html, retrieved 2026-06-01} — Fla. Stat. § 702.06: deficiency decree in court discretion; FMV cap for owner-occupied 1–4 family residential property.
• {statute, https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2024/95.11, retrieved 2026-06-01} — Fla. Stat. § 95.11(6)(h): one-year limitations period for deficiency action on residential 1–4 family mortgage; commences day after certificate of title issued.
• {statute, https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=61.24.100, retrieved 2026-06-01} — RCW 61.24.100: Washington bar on deficiency after non-judicial trustee’s sale; exceptions for commercial loans (post-June 11, 1998): waste, wrongful-retention, guarantor actions within 1 year.
• {statute, https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_86.797, retrieved 2026-06-01} — ORS 86.797: Oregon bar on deficiency after trustee’s sale or judicial foreclosure of residential trust deed; simultaneous-transaction obligations covered; guarantors may be pursued after judicial foreclosure.
• {statute, https://ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_45/GS_45-21.38.html, retrieved 2026-06-01} — NCGS § 45-21.38: North Carolina abolition of deficiency judgments for purchase-price mortgages; applies to any property type; note must disclose purchase-money purpose on its face.
• {statute, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/582.30, retrieved 2026-06-02} — Minn. Stat. § 582.30: deficiency barred after foreclosure by advertisement with 6-month or 5-week redemption period (subd. 2). Jury-trial / FMV requirement (subds. 3 & 5) applies ONLY to mortgages on property used in agricultural production foreclosed judicially; 90-day filing window; commercial-reasonableness standard. Does not extend to non-agricultural residential judicial foreclosures.
• {case, https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/walker-v-community-bank-27792, retrieved 2026-06-01} — Walker v. Community Bank, 10 Cal.3d 729 (Cal. 1974): one-action rule holding; lender who sues on note waives security; security-first requirement confirmed.
• {case, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/265/40.html, retrieved 2026-06-02} — Union Bank v. Gradsky, 265 Cal.App.2d 40 (Cal. App. 1968): § 580d estoppel bars lender from pursuing guarantor after non-judicial sale; foundation of sham-guaranty doctrine.
• {secondary, https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/foreclosure/anti-deficiency-laws.html, retrieved 2026-06-01} — Nolo/AllLaw 50-state anti-deficiency chart: state-by-state classification used for divergence table (secondary source; primary statutes verified individually for key states above).

Disclaimer. This page is legal information, not legal advice. It is a general, cross-jurisdiction summary that may be incomplete or out of date; law varies by jurisdiction and changes frequently. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Verify every deadline and statute against the current primary source and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.