Harold Frazier and Mary Lou Frazier v‪.‬

Neilsen & Company appeals from the summary judgment awarding the Fraziers the money owing on a promissory note secured
by a deed of trust on certain real property. Neilsen argues that an amendment to I.C. § 45-1503 by House Bill 274,
passed during the 1989 legislative session, is applicable to this case and requires liquidation of the secured property before
any other assets of the borrower can be reached for payment of the debt. For the following reasons, we disagree and we affirm
the summary judgment. The facts of this case are set out in detail in Frazier v. Neilsen & Co., 115 Idaho 739, 769 P.2d 1111 (1989). The Fraziers
sold real property to Neilsen in return for a promissory note secured by a deed of trust against the property. Neilsen defaulted
on the note and Frazier filed suit for money judgment on the note without first foreclosing upon the secured property. Alternatively,
Count II of Frazier's complaint sought judicial foreclosure of the deed of trust and entry of a deficiency judgment. However,
it was clear from the complaint that Frazier's preferred form of relief was a money judgment for the full amount due under
the promissory note. The district court granted this relief in a summary judgment.