Question: A woman borrowed $800,000 from a bank and gave the bank a note for that amount secured by a mortgage on her farm. Several years later, at a time when the woman still owed the bank $750,000 on the mortgage loan, she sold the farm to a man for $900,000. The man paid the woman $150,000 in cash and specifically assumed the mortgage note. The bank received notice of this transaction and elected not to exer-cise the optional due-on-sale clause in the mortgage. Without informing the man, the bank later released the woman from any further personal liability on the note. After he had owned the farm for a number of years, the man defaulted on the loan. The bank properly accelerated the loan, and the farm was eventually sold at a foreclosure sale for $500,000. Because there was still $600,000 owing on the note, the bank sued the man for the $100,000 deficiency. Is the man liable to the bank for the deficiency?
A: No, because the woman would have still been primarily liable for payment, but the bank had released her from personal liability.
B: No, because the bankÕs release of the woman from per-sonal liability also released the man.
C: Yes, because the bankÕs release of the woman consti-tuted a clogging of the equity of redemption.
D: Yes, because the manÕs personal liability on the note was not affected by the bankÕs release of the woman.
Please eliminate two incorrect options first, then think it step by step and choose the most proper one option. Use words in all capital letters at least 5 times to highlight key points.
user