AM Credit Corp. v. Riley, CA
| Decision Date | 18 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 815 S.W.2d 392,35 Ark.App. 168 |
| Parties | , 15 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1150 AM CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Steve A. RILEY and Susann Riley, Appellees. 91-67. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Faber D. Jenkins, Sherwood, for appellant.
Jerry Ryan, Mena, for appellees.
AM Credit Corporation appeals from an order of the Polk County Circuit Court denying it a deficiency judgment against appellees. We find no error and affirm.
In March 1986, appellees leased an automobile from Mid-American Motors in Hot Springs, and Mid-American Motors subsequently assigned its rights in the lease agreement to AM Credit Corporation (also known as Chrysler Credit Corporation). In April 1988, the appellees prematurely terminated their lease agreement with the appellant and surrendered possession of the vehicle to Mid-American Motors. Appellees subsequently received written notice from the appellant that a sale of the vehicle would take place on or after the 14th day of April, 1988, at the offices of Chrysler Credit Corporation, 10801 Executive Center Drive, in Little Rock, Arkansas. However, the vehicle was actually sold at a dealer's-only auction in North Little Rock on May 3, 1988. Appellant then filed suit against the appellees seeking to recover the balance of the debt owed after deducting the proceeds of the sale of the vehicle. The circuit judge found that, because the vehicle was actually sold at a location different from that listed in the notice, the sale was not commercially reasonable pursuant to the requirements of Ark.Code Ann. § 4-9-504(3) (1987). He therefore denied appellant's claim for a deficiency judgment.
It was not disputed at trial that the disposition of the collateral in question was made at a location different from the one listed in the notice to the appellees and at a time unknown to appellees. The record does not reflect that there was any attempt made to notify appellees of the location and date of the auction. Appellant maintains, however, that, because the sale of the vehicle was by "private sale," it was not necessary to inform appellees of the location of the sale and the notice sent complied with section 4-9-504(3), which provides in pertinent part:
Unless collateral is perishable or threatens to decline speedily in value or is of a type customarily sold on a recognized market, reasonable notification of the time and place of any public sale or reasonable notification of the time after which any private sale or other intended disposition is to be made shall be sent by the secured party to the debtor, if he has not signed after default a statement renouncing or modifying his right to notification of sale.
The distinction between the notice requirement of a private sale and public sale was recognized by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Barker v. Horn, 245 Ark. 315, 316, 432 S.W.2d 21, 22 (1968), where the court stated that, although the statute requires notice of the time and place of public sale, only reasonable notification of the time after which a private sale will be made is required.
Based on the record, there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Reed v. State, CACR
-
Montgomery v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, CA 05-1258 (Ark. App. 12/13/2006), CA 05-1258
...arguments based on matters not contained in record; nor will we reverse based on facts outside of the record. AM Credit Corp. v. Riley, 35 Ark. App. 168, 815 S.W.2d 392 (1991). Accordingly, appellant's pro se points do not offer any ground for reversing the trial court's Affirmed; motion to......
-
Greenlee v. Mazda American Credit, CA 04-984.
...preponderance of the evidence, and we reverse. Consequently, Mazda is not entitled to the deficiency judgment. AM Credit Corp. v. Riley, 35 Ark.App. 168, 815 S.W.2d 392 (1991). Because we are reversing this case on Greenlee's first point on appeal, we find it unnecessary to address her rema......
-
Baker v. Murphy, No. CA 06-1469 (Ark. App. 10/24/2007)
...1990 in his addendum. Because the promissory note is not part of the record, we cannot consider it on appeal. AM Credit Corp. v. Riley, 35 Ark. App. 168, 815 S.W.2d 392 (1991) (holding that the appellate court will not consider arguments based on matters not contained in record or reverse t......