STRAIGHT TALK IS GOOD BUSINESS.

Ar ticles

Beware the Boiler plate: Issue One

Linda R. Stahl
December 12, 2012
This is the first issue in a four-part series of Beware the Boilerplate articles.
A loan is only as good as its documents. Over the next four weeks, this series will review the potential implications that may
go unnoticed in boilerplate language and the importance of customizing standard language in loan documents from one
transaction to the next.
In this issue:
Introduction
Waiver Provisions
Another Thing About Waivers
Introduction
If theres anything weve learned from this Great Recession, its that better loans make better asset-backed securities. While
lots of attention has been focused on loan quality in terms of underwriting, not much has been said about how the quality of
loan documents themselves affect collectability and, by extension, value to the pool. But when the time comes to enforce a
loan or guaranty, the devil is in the draftingnot just of the negotiated terms, but of those standard provisions often copied
from one transaction to another. Over the next few weeks, well look at several standard boilerplate provisions found in loan
documents, and discuss why it just might be time to give your forms a second look.
The litigators silver bullet: summary judgment
But before we get into specific provisions . . . a little context. Whether securitized or unsecuritized, backed by a guaranty or
limited recourse, loan transactions are, at the core, contractual arrangements. MBS servicers and investors believe that
enforcing their loans should be a quick and easy proceedingafter all, the borrower signed a contract. You just file suit,
show the judge the contract, and come home with an enforceable judgment. In my business, thats called summary
judgment, where the moving party demonstrates that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. But defense lawyers with a little skill and savvy can capitalize on inartfully drafted
loan documents to avoid summary judgment, generate fact issues for trial, and generally increase the expense of
enforcement.
Time, as they say, is money. Even if a loan or guaranty is ultimately enforced after trial, lost time and energy are real costs
that can turn even the most miraculous trial victory into a business loss. A little work on the front-end reviewing long-ignored
standard provisions, however, can remove an arrow from the borrowers quiver and increase the chance of quick, efficient
loan enforcement.
Waiver Provisions
What is a waiver?
Loan documents (generally the note, security instrument and guaranty) often contain waiver provisions. Some common
waivers are indemnity provisions, waiver of the right to jury trial, waiver of defenses and waiver of notice. While parties
seeking waivers might favor sneaking such provisions into the document, this can often backfireand it is sure to for the
waivers litigants care about most.

STRAIGHT TALK IS GOOD BUSINESS.

Ar ticles

A waiver is the relinquishment of a right that is both (1) knowing and (2) voluntary. One way to help your lawyer show that a
waiver in a contract is both knowing and voluntary is to make it conspicuous in the document.
How do I make a waiver conspicuous?
Simply put, a conspicuous waiver is one that jumps out at you. Use of ALL CAPS, contrasting type or color, for example,
qualifies as conspicuous. Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505, 511 (Tex.1993). The most common,
and probably best practice, is to make a provision conspicuous by setting it apart in bold, all-cap letters. E.g. In re Gen.
Elec. Capital Corp., 203 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (recognizing that contractual jury waiver provision
that was conspicuousbecause it was in bolded font and in all capital lettersmet burden of party seeking to enforce
provision to make prima facie showing that waiver was knowing and voluntary). Using a heading in addition that specifically
states waiver of jury trial or waiver of defenses enhances conspicuousness and makes waiver provisions easier to
defend.
Why is conspicuousness so important?
A conspicuous waiver is presumed to be knowing and voluntary, which shifts the burden to the other party to negate the
presumption. Coupled with the general legal principle that persons are charged with knowledge of the contracts they sign
and cannot use failure to read as a defense, In re Lyon Fin. Services, Inc., 257 S.W.3d 228, 232-33 (Tex. 2008),
conspicuous waivers can be hard to beat.
More importantly, in the case of extraordinary risk-shifting waivers (you can read that as waivers lenders should care
about most), conspicuousness is required. Examples of extraordinary waivers are indemnity agreements, agreements to
release another in advance from liability for the others negligence, and waivers of jury trial. See Littlefield v. Schaefer, 955
S.W.2d 272, 273 (Tex.1997); Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505, 508 (Tex.1993); In re Bank of
Am., 278 S.W.342 (Tex. 2009).
Bottom line
Extraordinary or not, every waiver could benefit from being conspicuous.
Another Thing about Waivers . . .
Just as many waivers must be conspicuous in order to qualify as an intentional relinquishment of a right, they should, in
many circumstances, also be express. While the initial impulse may be to draft a general waiver clause that does not clue
the other side into exactly what waivers are important to your client, the approach is not without risk. Better to start with
specific waiver language and have it negotiated out, leaving the litigator with broad, general waiver language to fight about,
than to forego the opportunity to be so clear that no fight can be had. This is certainly the case with respect to matters not
yet resolved by the Texas Supreme Court, such as offset for fair market value of a foreclosed property in a deficiency suit.
Fair Market Value offset
Sections 51.003 and 51.005 of the Property Code allow the subject of a deficiency suit to seek a determination of fair
market value of the property, and pay only the difference between the amount due and fair market value, rather than the
difference between the amount due and the actual sale price. That means a lender selling at foreclosure or deciding on a
credit bid cannot be sure that the recoverable deficiency will equal the actual deficiency.
Section 51.003 is an affirmative defense. Cabot Capital Corp. v. USDR, Inc., No. 08-07-00202-CV, 2009 WL 1164928, at *4
(Tex. App.El Paso April 30, 2009, pet. denied). Because it is an affirmative defense, Fair Market Value (FMV) offset can
be waivedbut just what you need to accomplish a waiver remains unclear.

STRAIGHT TALK IS GOOD BUSINESS.

Ar ticles

The first two cases to consider the issue, Segal v. Emmes Capital, L.L.C., 155 S.W.3d 267, 279 (Tex. App.Houston [1st
Dist.] 2004, pet. dismd), and LaSalle Bank Natl Assn v. Sleutel, 289 F.3d 837, 842 (5th Cir. 2002), held that a guarantor
can waive any right of offset he may have under 51.003, but noted the particular language of the waivers. In Segal, the
waiver referred expressly to the applicable sections of the Texas Property Code. In LaSalle, the waiver included waiver of
the right of offset.
Reasoning from these two cases, trial courts have held that a generic statement that the guarantor or borrower waives all
defenses is not sufficient to evidence an intent to waive the protections afforded by the deficiency statute. In a series of
decisions late this summer, however, the Dallas Court of Appeals rejected this position, and held that a waiver of all
defenses means just thatall defenses, including the statutory right to FMV offset, are waived. Interstate 35/Chisam Road,
L.P. v. Moayedi, __ S.W.3d __, 2012 WL 3125148 (Tex. App.Dallas Aug. 2, 2012, no pet. h.); Toor v. PNC Bank N.A., 2012
WL 3637284 (Tex.App.-Dallas Aug. 24, 2012, no pet. h.); King v. Park Cities Bank, 2012 WL 3144881 (Tex.App.Dallas
Aug. 3, 2012, no pet. h.).
While the Dallas cases can be reconciled with the earlier precedents, until the Texas Supreme Court rules on the issue, the
state of the law is unclear. In some jurisdictions, a general waiver may suffice, and in others, use of the term offset or
specific reference to Section 51.003 and 51.005 may be required. With the increase in foreclosures, this is an issue ripe for
the Courts consideration, so stay tuned . . .
Bottom line
If you want a waiver of defenses to include waiver of a right to a FMV determination and offset (and if youre the lender, you
do!), the safer practiceat least for nowis to state so explicitly. At a minimum, use the word offset. You may win without
this language, but not without a fight. So why not include it? And while you are at it, go ahead and underline it. See Segal,
155 S.W.3d at 284 (noting that if conspicuousness were required, fact that property code provisions being waived was
underlined met such requirement).
Click a link below to read other issues in this series
Beware the Boilerplate: Issue Two
Beware the Boilerplate: Issue Three
Beware the Boilerplate: Issue Four
Beware the Boilerplate: Post-Script

Unless otherwise indicated, lawyers listed on this website are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. A past performance or prior result is no
guarantee of a similar future result in another case or matter. Andrews Kurth is responsible for the content of this website. Andrews Kurth, the Andrews Kurth
logo and Straight Talk Is Good Business are registered service marks of Andrews Kurth LLP. Andrews Kurth LLP is a Texas limited liability partnership. Andrews
Kurth (Middle East) JLT is registered and licensed as a Free Zone company under the rules and regulations of DMCCA. Attorney Advertising.