North Dakota Century Code
N.D. Cent. Code § 32-19-07 (2026)
Other suits permitted
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ND-LEGndlegis.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Notwithstanding any other provision of state law, if a promissory note or other obligation and a mortgage, other than a first mortgage, upon real estate have been given to secure a debt contracted on or after August 1, 1993, a mortgagee may bring an action on the promissory note if the mortgagee waives the right to foreclose the mortgage given to secure the note. Allowing a mortgagee to bring an action on the promissory note or other obligation of the mortgagor if the mortgagee waives the right to foreclosure of the mortgage given to secure the note applies only to residential real property consisting of four or fewer residential units.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases, 1964–2014 · leading case: First Nat'l Bank of Crosby v. Bjorgen, 389 N.W.2d 789 (N.D. 1986).
First Nat'l Bank of Crosby v. Bjorgen, 389 N.W.2d 789 (N.D. 1986). “At no time during any of these proceedings before the district court or during the levy upon and execution sale of the personal and real property did Bjorgen assert that the Bank’s action controvened Section 32-19-07, N.D.C.C. However, on October 15,1985, more than 17 months…”
East Grand Forks Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Mueller, 198 N.W.2d 124 (N.D. 1972). “Under the circumstances the defense of Section 32-19-07, N.D. C.C., asserted by the Defendant, Red River Realty, Inc.”
Borsheim v. Owan, 467 N.W.2d 95 (N.D. 1991). “[1] Relying on § 32-19-07, N.D.C.C., the Borsheims contend that "no money was loaned by the Borsheims `upon real estate or to secure the purchase price of real estate'" and that "[n]owhere in this statute does the legislature make any attempt to apply the statute to a situation…”
Norwest Bank North Dakota, Nat'l Ass'n v. Christianson, 494 N.W.2d 165 (N.D. 1992). “1991), we held that the anti-deficiency statute, NDCC § 32-19-07, applies to general partners who guaranty their partnership's notes which are secured by a mortgage.”
Alerus Fin., N.A. v. Lamb, 2003 ND 158 (N.D. 2003). “IV [¶ 14] Finally, Lamb argues the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to Alerus and erred entering judgment of foreclosure because the action violated N.D.C.C. § 32-19-07, the anti-deficiency statute.”
Brunsoman v. Scarlett, 465 N.W.2d 162 (N.D. 1991). “[2] NDCC § 32-19-07 provides: " 32-19-07. Other suits prohibited.”
H & F Hogs v. Huwe, 368 N.W.2d 553 (N.D. 1985). “Section 32-19-07, N.D.C.C., provides in pertinent part: “Except as otherwise provided in sections 32-19-04 and 32-19-06, neither before nor after the rendition of a judgment for the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage or for the cancellation or foreclosure of a land contract…”
Schiele v. First Nat'l Bank of Linton, 404 N.W.2d 479 (N.D. 1987). “Based on that purpose and history, we have construed N.D.C.C. § 32-19-07, to preclude a mortgagee from bringing an action against a mortgagor for a personal money judgment except as permitted by N.”
First Nat'l Bank & Trust of Williston v. Ashton, 436 N.W.2d 215 (N.D. 1989). “, provides in pertinent part: "Except as otherwise provided in sections 32-19-04 and 32-19-06, neither before nor after the rendition of a judgment for the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage or for the cancellation or foreclosure of a land contract made after July 1, 1951,…”
McKee v. Kinev, 160 N.W.2d 97 (N.D. 1968). “* * *" The salient part of Section 32-19-07, N.D.C.C., which is applicable to the case as bar, provides: "* * * Except as otherwise provided in sections 32-19-04 and 32-19-06, neither before nor after the rendition of a judgment * * * for the cancellation or foreclosure of a…”
Gust v. Peoples & Enderlin State Bank, 447 N.W.2d 914 (N.D. 1989). “Section 32-19-07, N.D. C.C., provides in relevant part: “Except as otherwise provided in sections 32-19-04 and 32-19-06, neither before nor after the rendition of a judgment for the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage or for the cancellation or foreclosure of a land contract…”
Nw. Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Delzer, 425 N.W.2d 365 (N.D. 1988). “1986), that a creditor’s alleged failure to comply with the anti-deficiency judgment statutes did not limit the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction: “We do not believe this statute [§ 32-19-07, N.D.C.C.] was intended to put a limitation on the subject matter…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.