The opinion
*770 ROBB, Chief Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s determination that a deed in lieu of foreclosure releases a borrower from any obligation under a mortgage pursuant to federal law and HUD regulations. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s resolution of the case.
The majority laid out several facts that are not in dispute. Both parties agree they decided to pursue a deed in lieu of foreclosure after attending a settlement conference, a deficiency judgment cannot be sought against Dyer, Dyer cannot be held personally liable, and the deed in lieu of foreclosure must comply with federal law and HUD regulations. See Op. at 767-68. At issue is Dyer’s request to have a provision in the deed in lieu of foreclosure agreement stating he is released from personal liability. GMAC contends the provision it included in its draft of the agreement stating neither GMAC nor HUD will pursue a deficiency judgment from Dyer is sufficient.
Although I find no reason to disagree with the majority that a deed in lieu of foreclosure releases a borrower from liability as a matter of law, 8 what would be the harm in including Dyer’s requested provision? If a deed in lieu of foreclosure does in fact release a mortgagor from personal liability and if everyone agrees Dyer should be released from personal liability, the requested provision would only clarify this reality. HUD regulations do not prohibit parties adding language in addition to what is required, and Dyer is not attempting to remove a provision required by HUD. For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment requiring a revision of the agreement to include Dyer’s requested provision. In all other respects, I concur with the majority.
. It is worth noting, however, that GMAC chose to litigate against Dyer’s requested provision rather than merely agreeing to its addition to the agreement. While GMAC certainly had the right to respond to Dyer’s request for declaratory judgment and argue its drafted agreement was sufficient, this route would almost certainly be less cost-effective. If GMAC truly intends to not hold Dyer personally liable in any manner, this extra cost would serve no purpose.