Anglin v. Chrysler Credit Corp.

• Decision Date: 19 April 1989
• Docket Number: No. CA88-374,CA88-374
• Citation: 768 S.W.2d 44,27 Ark.App. 173
• Parties: , 8 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 861 George M. ANGLIN and Tammy R. Anglin, Appellants, v. CHRYSLER CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

Page 44

768 S.W.2d 44

27 Ark.App. 173, 8 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 861

George M. ANGLIN and Tammy R. Anglin, Appellants, v.CHRYSLER CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. CA88-374.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas Division I.

April 19, 1989.

Benny Swindell, Clarksville, for appellants.

Faber D. Jenkins, Little Rock, for appellee.

COOPER, Judge.

The appellants, Tammy Anglin and George Anglin, appeal from an order of the circuit court of Johnson County granting a deficiency judgment against them of $2,832.93 plus interest and court costs.The appellants contend that, because the notice of the sale that was sent to them did not adhere to the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, the appellee was not entitled to a deficiency judgment.We find no error and affirm.

In 1984, the appellants purchased a pickup truck from Casey Motor Company, Inc., by a retail installment contract which was later assigned to the appellee, Chrysler Credit Corporation.After the appellants defaulted on their payments, the truck was repossessed by the appellee.Notice that the truck would be sold by a private sale beginning August 25, 1986, was sent to and received by the appellants.The notice erroneously specified that the truck would be sold by the dealer, Casey Motor Company, but at the time the notice was sent, Casey Motor Company was no longer in business and the truck was sold by the appellee.

Kent Bradford, employee of the appellee, testified that, at the time the notice was sent, Casey Motor Company had ceased operation and the appellee was the only party who could sell the repossessed truck.He stated that the appellee was not accustomed to the dealer not being in business and mistakenly checked the box on the notice form which indicated the dealer would sell the vehicle.Bradford also testified that four bids were taken for the truck and it was sold to the highest bidder for $2,200.00.After applying the sale proceeds to the balance owed, there remained a deficiency of $2,832.93.

AppellantGeorge Anglin testified that, after receiving notice of the sale, he went to Casey Motor Company to talk to them about the truck but discovered they were no longer in business.He admitted that he did not attempt to contact the person who sent the notice or take any other action to contact someone regarding the vehicle.

The appellants do not contend that they did not receive notice.They argue the notice they received was inadequate because it stated the truck would be sold by the dealer, Casey Motor Company.They rely on First State Bank of Morrilton v. Hallett, 291 Ark. 37, 722 S.W.2d 555(1987), for the proposition that, when a creditor repossesses collateral without sending the debtors the proper notice as required by the Uniform Commercial Code, the creditor is not entitled to a deficiency judgment.

We do not agree that the notice in the case at bar failed to meet the requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code.That section of the Code is codified at Ark.Code Ann. Section 4-9-504(3)(1987), which provides in 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...