Nelson v. Monarch Inv. Plan of Henderson, Inc.
Decision Date | 27 March 1970 |
Citation | 7 UCC Rep. Serv. 394,452 S.W.2d 375 |
Parties | 7 UCC Rep.Serv. 394 Jack L. NELSON and Gail Nelson, Appellants, v. MONARCH INVESTMENT PLAN OF HENDERSON, INC., Appellee. MONARCH INVESTMENT PLAN OF HENDERSON, INC., Cross-Appellant, v. Jack L. NELSON and Gail Nelson, Cross-Appellees. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Charles B. West, Walker & West, Henderson, for appellants.
Robert G. Hunt, King, Deep, Branaman & Hunt, Henderson, for appellees.
CLAY, Commissioner.
This is a suit to recover a balance due on a note executed by defendant appellant, Jack Nelson, for the purchase of an automobile. The defendant counterclaimed for damages on the ground plaintiff appellee had sold the purchased vehicle for less than its market value and had failed to give defendant notice of the sale as required by KRS 355.9--504. The trial judge gave plaintiff summary judgment after giving defendant proper credit, and dismissed the counterclaim.
Defendant purchased the automobile on April 20, 1965, and executed his promissory note in the amount of approximately $1400. Before the first payment was due, defendant voluntarily brought the car to plaintiff's office and directed plaintiff to sell the automobile. At that time defendant stated he did not want the car under any circumstances, and delivered to plaintiff the ignition keys and the license receipt. Not long thereafter plaintiff's representative visited defendant at his home and obtained from him a signed bill of sale and a consignment agreement, the latter authorizing plaintiff to sell the vehicle at the best price it could obtain.
Subsequently defendant took back the bill of sale and said he wanted to cancel the consignment agreement. The reason for this change of mind is not shown. Thereafter plaintiff solicited and received bids from three used-car dealers. The car was then sold at a private sale to the highest bidder for $750. No claim is made that this was not a fair price on a used-car dealer market. No notice of this particular sale was given defendant.
The principal question raised on this appeal is whether the private sale of this repossessed automobile was on a 'recognized market' within the meaning of KRS 355.9--504(3). That subsection provides:
(Emphasis added)
It will be noted first that every disposition of collateral must be 'commercially reasonable'. 1 The record convinces us that the method, manner, time, place and terms of this private sale were commercially reasonable. This appears as a customary business practice in disposing of repossessed automobiles. There is nothing to indicate lack of good faith, unfairness or fraud.
However, the condition above discussed does not affect the requirement of notice. Reasonable notification of the sale must be given unless the collateral is either (1) perishable, or (2) threatens to decline in value, or (3) is of a type customarily sold on a recognized market. The latter is the only exemption upon which plaintiff could rely in this case. The reason for exempting such transaction from the notice requirement obviously is because the price on the recognized market represents the fair market value from day to day. The purpose of notice is to permit the debtor to bid at the sale or to protect himself from an inadequate sale price. If there is an established and recognized market, theoretically the best price at any given time is the current market price. We do not have such a recognized market for repossessed automobiles as a class. They vary widely in make, style, horsepower, age and condition.
While the question is one of first impression in Kentucky, it has been passed upon in Pennsylvania and Arkansas. Alliance Discount Corp. v. Shaw, 195 Pa.Super. 601, 171 A.2d 548 (1961); Norton v. National Bank of Commerce of Pine Bluff, 240 Ark. 143, 398 S.W.2d 538 (1966). In the Alliance case it is observed (page 550 of 171 A.2d):
Notice, as required by the Act, should have been given.'
In the Norton case it was said (page 540 of 398 S.W.2d):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Curley
...Tractor Co., 495 So.2d 513 (Ala.1986); Barnett Bank of Tallahassee v. Campbell, 402 So.2d 12 (Fla.App. 1981); Nelson v. Monarch Invest. Plan, Inc., 452 S.W.2d 375 (Ky.1970); Norton v. National Bank of Commerce, 240 Ark. 143, 398 S.W.2d 538 (Ark.1966); see also United States v. Willis, 593 F......
-
Dependable Ins. Co., Inc. v. Landers
...to those in this case have been held sufficient to constitute a waiver of the notice of sale requirement. See Nelson v. Monarch Investment Plan, Inc., 452 S.W.2d 375 (Ky.1970); Grant County Tractor Co. v. Nuss, 6 Wash.App. 866, 496 P.2d 966 (Ct.App.1972). In other similar cases, courts have......
-
Hall v. Owen County State Bank
...there is a split of authority as to whether or not the debtor may waive notice of sale after default. In Nelson v. Monarch Investment Plan of Henderson, Inc. (1970), Ky., 452 S.W.2d 375, it was held that UCC § 9-501 applied only to the antecedent agreement between the debtor and secured par......
-
Simmons Machinery Co., Inc. v. M & M Brokerage, Inc., s. 79-861
...v. Owen County State Bank, Ind.App., 370 N.E.2d 918 (1978). Other states allow a post-default waiver. Nelson v. Monarch Investment Plan of Henderson, Inc., 452 S.W.2d 375 (Ky.1970). Although our present § 7-9-504(3) does not specifically allow a post-default waiver of notice by a debtor, we......
-
Personal Property Security Interests in Washington-adoption of the 1972 Official Text of the Uniform Commercial Code Will Make a Good Law Better
...(1968). 281. 6 Wash. App. 866, 496 P.2d 966 (1972). 282. Id. at 870, 496 P.2d at 969. The court cited Nelson v. Monarch Inv. Plan, Inc., 452 S.W.2d 375 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970), as authority for this proposition. The 1962 Text of § 9-504(3) does not expressly authorize even a post-default waiver......