First Nat. Bank of Bellevue v. Rose
| Decision Date | 20 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 38159,38159 |
| Citation | 188 Neb. 362,196 N.W.2d 507 |
| Parties | , 10 UCC Rep.Serv. 903 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BELLEVUE, a Banking Corporation, Appellee, v. George P. ROSE, George Rose Sodding and Grading Co., a Corporation, Appellants. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the adequacy or insufficiency of the price for which collateral is sold at a private sale after default and repossession is one of the 'terms' of sale, and is relevant along with other issues, in determining whether the sale was commercially reasonable.
2. A general denial is available to a defendant to challenge one or more of the elements essential to a recovery by the plaintiff and the effect of the denial is to put the burden on the plaintiff to establish by evidence the matter denied.
3. Where an answer to a petition consists of a general denial, defendant may introduce such testimony as will tend to disprove testimony of plaintiff in support of his petition. For such purposes, no other allegations in the answer are necessary.
Ralph R. Bremers, Omaha, George T. Burr, Bellevue, for appellants.
Schmid, Ford, Mooney, Frederick & Caporale, Keith I. Frederick, Omaha, for appellee.
Heard before WHITE, C.J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, SMITH, McCOWN, NEWTON, and CLINTON, JJ.
This is an action to recover a deficiency judgment for the balance due on a secured promissory note of the defendants, after a sale of the collateral security. The district court sustained plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict and entered judgment against the defendants for $9,422.88.
In April 1969, the First National Bank of Bellevue consolidated two existing loans to defendants and advanced additional cash. The secured note was for $22,200. The security agreement covered various pieces of equipment, including tractors, vehicles, and trailers. Three monthly payments of $2,000 each were made. After default, the plaintiff replevined the equipment and disposed of it at private sale, after notice to the defendants. Following sale and disposition of the collateral, the plaintiff credited the sum of $10,268.50 on defendants' indebtedness.
Plaintiff's petition here set forth essentially those facts. Paragraph VII of the petition specifically alleged that $10,268.50 was the fair and reasonable value of the collateral. The petition prayed for attorneys fees and expenses in accordance with the security agreement and for judgment for the balance due on the note. When the jury trial began, the amount allegedly due was $9,422.88. The defendants' answer was a general denial of each and every allegation of the plaintiff's petition.
The plaintiff's evidence as to the value of the equipment sold at the private sale was largely undisputed except as to one 1959 Freuhauf platform flatbed trailer. Evidence as to that piece of equipment was confusing, to say the least. The flatbed trailer was on the equipment list attached to the financing statement and security agreement. It is not listed on the face of the judgment in the replevin action. There is evidence that a representative of the plaintiff at one point estimated the value of the trailer at $500. The defendant, George Rose, testified that its value was $1,000. The trailer is not specifically accounted for on any record of the sale. Plaintiff's witness conceded that the trailer had been repossessed but could not clearly account for it. In other testimony by that witness, he said: 'I guess that trailer was thrown into the hopper.' That same witness had assigned a value of $3,836.01 to two tractors. He finally testified that the tractors together with the trailer brought only $3,000 at the sale, but the plaintiff credited the defendants with $3,836.01, the value of the two tractors.
The trial court took the position that inadequacy of price at the private sale of the collateral was not in issue under a general denial but was instead a matter of affirmative defense which had not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greathouse v. Charter Nat. Bank-Southwest
...Fin. Corp., 709 S.W.2d 841 (Ky.Ct.App.1986); Rexing v. Doug Evans Auto Sales, 703 S.W.2d 491 (Ky.Ct.App.1986); First Nat'l Bank v. Rose, 188 Neb. 362, 196 N.W.2d 507 (1972) (secured creditor bears the burden of proof regardless of whether debtor raises the issue as an affirmative defense); ......
-
Connecticut Bank and Trust Co., N.A. v. Incendy
...First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Jacobson Appliance, supra, 196 Neb. at 407-408, 243 N.W.2d 745; First National Bank of Bellevue v. Rose, 188 Neb. 362, 364, 196 N.W.2d 507 (1972); Levers v. Rio King Land & Investment Co., supra, 93 Nev. at 98, 560 P.2d 917; 1A M. Bender, supra, § 8.04[a],......
-
Clark Leasing Corp. v. White Sands Forest Products, Inc.
...admitted, prove that the sale was commercially reasonable. Vic Hansen & Sons, Inc. v. Crowley, supra; First National Bank of Bellevue v. Rose, 188 Neb. 362, 196 N.W.2d 507 (1972); Universal C.I.T. Credit Co. v. Rone, supra; Mallicoat v. Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 57 Tenn.App. 106, 415 ......
-
Atlas Thrift Co. v. Horan
...See also, Grant County Tractor Co., Inc. v. Nuss (1972) 6 Wash.App. 866, 496 P.2d 966 (Div. 3); First National Bank of Belleview v. Rose (1972) 188 Neb. 362, 196 N.W.2d 507; Norton v. National Bank of Commerce of Pine Bluff (1966) 240 Ark. 143, 398 S.W.2d 538; Alliance Discount Corp. v. Sha......