ROBB, J.
It is well settled that “[l]iteral accuracy in describing the debt secured by the mortgage is not required, but the description of the debt must be correct, so far as it goes, and full enough to direct attention to the sources of correct information in regard to it, and be such as not to mislead or deceive, as to the nature or amount of it, by the language used.” . . . .
Here, the Mortgage signed by Holland purported to secure debt “incurred under the terms of” a “Promissory Note dated December 27, 2001 executed by Dolson, Inc. and Maurice E. Doll and Shanna R. Doll and C. Wayne Thompson and maturing December 27, 2021.” . . . This description, while accurate as to the date of execution of the Note and its maturity date, was inaccurate as to the identity of the Note’s makers: C. Wayne Thompson did not execute the Note as a co-maker; rather, by executing the separate Guaranty, he became liable only as a guarantor. [Footnote omitted.] . . . Thus, the Mortgage’s description of the debt was not accurate “so far as it goes,” Bowen, 39 N.E. at 862, in that Thompson was not a primary obligor. This conclusion does not end our inquiry, as we must also determine whether the inaccuracy was sufficiently material as to “mislead or deceive, as to the nature or amount” of the debt. Id.
In the context of this particular transaction, based on undisputed facts, the answer is yes. Holland, because she agreed to mortgage her Real Estate as security for the debt of others, agreed to act as a surety. . . . Notwithstanding Holland’s obligations under the Lease, which could have required her to execute a mortgage in connection with the Dolson business, she was not obligated to execute the Mortgage here at issue. [Footnote omitted.]
Due to Holland’s status as a surety, if Thompson had been liable on the Note as a primary obligor, then any release of Thompson would, as a general rule, also have released Holland and her Real Estate. . . . However, because Thompson was only a guarantor of the Note, and thereby a co-surety with Holland, [footnote omitted] SPCP’s June 2007 release of Thompson did not have the effect of releasing Holland. See First Nat’l Bank of South Bend v. Mayr, 189 Ind. 299, 127 N.E. 7, 9-10 (1920) (modern rule is creditor’s release of one surety does not release co-sureties). In sum, the fact Thompson signed as a guarantor rather than a co-maker of the Note altered the transaction materially, because it permitted SPCP to release Thompson while validly claiming that Holland and her Real Estate were not thereby discharged.
. . . .
. . . In sum, SPCP cannot establish that the Mortgage is valid, because Holland relied to her detriment on the Mortgage’s inaccurate description of indebtedness, an inaccuracy that was material because allowing Thompson to execute a guaranty rather than the Note as a co-maker placed Holland in a different position and increased her risk of loss. The trial court properly granted Holland summary judgment.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur.