Co-Borrower or Guarantor? A Distinction with a Difference

Written by Michelle R. Jester and Molly R. Hamilton
Posted Jul 1, 2014

Co-Borrower or Guarantor? A Distinction with a Difference

As is common in life and business, routine and habit often dictate—the lending context is no exception. Many banks utilize either a co-borrower or guarantor structure as a matter of course without considering the specific circumstances of each loan. The recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision in Andrews v. Bruntjen, A13-0815 (Minn. App. Mar. 10, 2014), which
discussed critical distinctions between co-borrowers and guarantors, serves as a reminder to banks to closely consider such distinctions when structuring loans.

In Andrews v. Bruntjen, the appellant, a co-borrower under a loan, argued that he was not obligated to repay the loan that was subsequently modified because he was acting as a guarantor rather than a co-borrower. Although rejected by the Court, this argument highlights a significant distinction between a guarantor and co-borrower under Minnesota law.  Specifically, a co-borrower may remain primarily liable under a loan even if another co-borrower alters certain terms of the loan or releases certain collateral securing the loan.

Another important distinction to remember is that a co-borrower is primarily liable for the debt from its inception. In contrast, a guarantor is not liable unless the underlying borrower defaults and, depending on the terms of the guaranty, the lender pursues collection efforts against the borrower. As such, a lender pursuing a guarantor must typically engage in a two-step legal process of proving a default by the borrower and establishing the guarantor’s liability under the guaranty.

However, it is important to note that most guaranties contain a myriad of express waivers of defenses (i.e. release of collateral, release of co-borrower or guarantor, modification of loan terms, etc.), thereby streamlining recovery from a guarantor that is secondarily liable. Most promissory notes do not contain similar language, and therefore a borrower retains the right to assert a litany of applicable defenses to delay or attempt to avoid liability. Even if a lender sought to include certain waiver language in its standard promissory note form, there is an open question whether courts would enforce certain waiver provisions against co-borrowers. Indeed, courts may tend to enforce the substantive nature of the transaction rather than the form the lender has chosen to structure the transaction.

An additional distinction warranting consideration is that a lender utilizing foreclosure by advertisement retains the right to pursue a guarantor for a deficiency judgment. However, in a foreclosure by advertisement, the right to pursue a deficiency is waived as to any borrower.

While this article only addresses some of the critical distinctions between co-borrower and guarantor structures, these differences implicate underwriting, securitization, loan modifications, default, and collection. Accordingly, banks should determine the appropriate structure on a case-by-case basis for each transaction at hand rather than adhering to one particular structure as a matter of course. When it comes to co-borrower versus guarantor, it is a distinction with a difference.

Tips for Lenders
1. Consider co-borrower vs. guarantor structure on a case-by-case basis.
2. Understand the distinct potential defenses available to co-borrowers vs. guarantors under Minnesota law.
3. Structure loan documents to protect the bank’s ability to collect from a co-borrower or guarantor while mitigating unnecessary legal or business issues.

Michelle R. Jester and Molly R. Hamilton, attorneys with Messerli & Kramer, P.A., ICBM Associate members,, 612-672-3718,, 612-672-3672.

Learn More about Messerli Kramer’s Attorneys Michelle R. Jester Molly R. Hamilton Cawley
Recent News

Banking and Finance Team Continues to Expand, Adds Another Top Attorney

Recent News

Corporate Transparency Act

Recent News

Banking and Finance Team Adds Another Top Attorney