lessee’s obligations.” Id. at 8. The district court then concluded that the City was entitled to the escrow fund under its assignment of rents to secure the performance of its mortgage covenants. Id. This appeal followed. I. ANTI-DEFICIENCY STATUTE The trustee, FILP, and FIMC argue that the City’s claim to the escrow fund is barred by the Minnesota anti-deficiency statute. Although the City recognizes that it is barred from obtaining a deficiency judgment against Brewery, the City contends that under Minnesota law, the anti-deficiency statute does not preclude it from asserting a claim to the escrow fund based on breach of mortgage covenants that do not concern the mortgage debt. See Kooda Bros. Constr. v. United Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Alexandria, 400 N.W.2d 407 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). Based on the holding in Kooda, the district
holding that the mortgagee had no right to rents under its assignment of rents during the redemption period because it purchased the property for the full amount of the mortgage debt at its foreclosure sale holding that in a case in which an omitted junior mortgagee foreclosed its mortgage the junior mortgagee had the absolute right to redeem from the senior mortgagee who had purchased the property at a sale following foreclosure of the senior mortgage holding that the mortgagee named in the mortgage at the time of the mortgages execution acquired the legal title to the property holding that a mortgagee could enforce mortgage covenants requiring the mortgagors to keep the property free of encumbrances even after it foreclosed by advertisement and purchased the property for the full amount of the mortgage debt because the mortgage covenants concerned title to the mortgaged property rather than repayment of the debt holding that a mortgage encompasses a property right