conclusive enough to support a general lien____” Id. Bryan is consistent with case law around the country. See Carrillo v. Coors, 901 P.2d 214, 217 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (collecting cases). ¶ 12. Our holding on husband’s second argument disposes of his first argument — that the bank improperly refused to accept the recording of the divorce decree in the land records. The recording alone left unresolved husband’s argument that he had a security interest that was superior to any mortgage obtained by the bank; the bank was certainly entitled to know what security it would obtain. In any event, the bank is not a party in this litigation, and it is free to judge what security is adequate for a prospective loan. See Vermont Nat’l Bank v. Dowrick, 144 Vt. 504, 512, 481 A.2d 396, 400-01 (1984) (<HOLDING>) (citing Restatement of Torts § 762 cmt. a
holding bank was allowed to refuse prospective lender because businesses are free to select business relations in their own interest recognizing the tort of wrongful interference with anothers business relations holding that conclusory allegations that defendant used coercive business practices to intentionally interfere with business relations was insufficient to state a claim holding that the difference between interference with contract and prospective relations is that second tort requires showing of malice holding former employees breach of fiduciary duties to employer satisfies the sturges prerequisites for a claim of tortious interference with prospective business relations