$"294.$ Guaranty.Timothy Martinez, owner of Koenig & Vits, Inc. $($K&V$),$ guaranteed K&V$$s debt to Community Bank & Trust. e guaranty stated that the bank was not required to seek payment of the debt from any other source before enforcing the guaranty. K&V defaulted. rough a Wis$-$consin state court, the bank sought payment of $$536,739\mathrm{.}40,$ plus interest at the contract rate of $7\mathrm{.}5$ percent, from Mar$-$tinez. Martinez argued that the bank could not enforce his guaranty while other funds were available to satisfy K&V$$s debt. For example, the debt might be paid out of the pro$-$ceeds of a sale of corporate assets. Is this an effective defense to a guaranty? Why or why not? $[$Community Bank & Trust v$.$ Koenig & Vits, Inc., $346$ Wis$\mathrm{.}2$d $279($Wis$.$App. $2013)]($See Suretyship and Guaranty"