In Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Zivkovic, 232 Ariz. 286, 290,16, 304 P.3d 1109, 1113 (App. 2013) the Court held that 33-814(G) precludes recovery of any type of deficiency from a borrower notwithstanding the borrower's express written agreement in the original deed of trust to waive anti-deficiency protections. Parkway left unanswered, however, whether the statute precludes recovery from a guarantor under an express written guaranty prospectively waiving anti-deficiency protections. Id. at 291 n.5,17, 304 P.3d at 1114 n.5. In Parkway, the Court noted the "significant public policy concerns" addressed through the anti-deficiency statutes: The statutes were intended to "protect consumers from financial ruin" and "eliminate . . . hardships resulting to consumers who, when purchasing a home, fail to realize the extent to which they are subjecting assets besides the home to legal process." The anti-deficiency statutes "allocate the risk of inadequate security" to lenders, "thereby discouraging overvaluation of the collateral." Additionally, "if inadequacy of the security results, not from overvaluing, but from a decline in property values during a general or local depression, the anti-deficiency statutes prevent the aggravation of the downturn that would result if defaulting purchasers were burdened with large personal liability." 232 Ariz. at 290,16, 304 P.3d at 1113.