Siboney Corp. v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 17089
Decision Date | 25 May 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 17089,17089 |
Citation | 572 S.W.2d 4 |
Parties | 24 UCC Rep.Serv. 1366 SIBONEY CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CHICAGO PNEUMATIC TOOL COMPANY, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Ellis F. Morris, Houston, for appellant.
Baker & Botts, David P. Cotellesse, Houston, for appellee.
Siboney Corporation appeals from the granting of a deficiency judgment in favor of Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, the owner and holder of a note. Chicago Pneumatic repossessed the collateral for the note, held a public sale and then brought this action for the deficiency. The jury found that Chicago Pneumatic sent reasonable notice of the sale to Siboney, declined to find that Chicago Pneumatic failed to act in a commercially reasonable manner or that the $100,000 received for the collateral was grossly inadequate but found that the fair market value of the equipment at the time of the sale was $150,000. The court entered judgment on this verdict in favor of Chicago Pneumatic for the amount of the deficiency plus interest and attorney's fees. Siboney argues on appeal that the notice was insufficient, so the sale was not commercially reasonable as a matter of law, that the sale price was grossly inadequate as a matter of law, that the findings as to commercial reasonableness and as to adequacy of the sale price were not supported by the evidence, and that a remittitur should be ordered. Appellant also claims that the appellee failed to rebut a presumption that the value of the collateral equals the debt. We affirm.
In February, 1969 MoRoCo, Inc., executed a $296,255 note and a chattel mortgage in favor of Compression Fabricators, Inc. for the purchase of 3 Chicago Pneumatic air compressors. Compression Fabricators assigned the note to Chicago Pneumatic, and Siboney assumed the liabilities of Compression Fabricators when it acquired that company in 1969. In December of that year Siboney purchased the air compressors from MoRoCo and assumed the primary obligation on the note. Siboney gave Compression possession of the equipment, and Compression continued to make the payments for a time but stopped in the spring of 1971.
Chicago Pneumatic repossessed the compressors in Las Vegas, Nevada, shipped them to Houston and stored them at the yard of Texas Commercial Industries, Inc., where it conducted a public sale on October 4, 1971. Chicago Pneumatic purchased the compressors on its bid of $100,000, credited the proceeds of the sale to the note, unsuccessfully demanded the deficit and instituted this suit.
Appellant's first point of error is that the notice of sale given by Chicago Pneumatic to Siboney did not meet the reasonable notification requirements of § 9.504(c) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, so the sale was not commercially reasonable as a matter of law.
Mr. Gipson testified that omission of the words "Houston, Texas" after the address of Texas Commercial Industries was an oversight. Siboney argues that this notice was insufficient as a matter of law because it failed to show the city in which the sale was to be held. Whether the acts of a party are reasonable is usually a question of fact. "Reasonable notification" is not defined in the article; we consider that less than a full and complete notice is required. We hold that a fact issue was raised and that the jury was entitled to conclude that the notice was sufficient to inform reasonable business persons of the place of the sale.
The notice was sent to Siboney's Dallas office. The attorney for the creditor who signed the notice gave a Houston address and phone number, the address of the place of sale was given as 11601 North Houston-Rosslyn Road, the name of the property's owner was shown to be Compression, Inc. of Houston, Texas, and Siboney did not produce any evidence that its representatives either did not understand or could not deduce the place of the sale from the notice. Siboney's testimony shows that it merely forwarded the notice to Compression, Inc., a company it had previously owned, and did nothing further. Siboney offered no showing that it was prejudiced by the omission of "Houston, Texas" after the address of Texas Commercial Industries in the notice.
Appellant urges as other points of error:
2. "The jury finding that the sale was commercially reasonable is not supported by the evidence."
4. "As a matter of law, the sale price of the collateral security was for a grossly inadequate price."
5. "The jury finding that the sale price was not grossly inadequate is not supported by the evidence and conflicts with the finding of fair market value."
Among others, the trial court submitted these issues and instructions and received these findings:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gray v. F.D.I.C.
...giving the best notification or full and complete notification is not required, Siboney Corp. v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 572 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.), what constitutes reasonable notice will vary with the particular facts and circumstances ......
-
Sunjet, Inc. v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
...treated" as an affirmative defense on which the debtor has the burden of proof); Siboney Corporation v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, 572 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (in the context of an attack based on the contention that the finding of commercia......
-
MBank Dallas, N.A. v. Sunbelt Mfg., Inc.
...steps to notify the debtor. Less than full and complete notice is required, Siboney Corp. v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 572 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.), and whether the notice is oral or written is only one factor that should be considered in dec......
-
Financial Fed. Credit Inc v. Hartmann
...Assn, Inc., 240 Ill.App.3d 622, 628, 608 N. E.2d 207, 212 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 1992); Siboney Corp. v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 572 S.W.2d 4, 8 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("The fact that a better price could have been obtained does not render the sale comm......
-
Secured Transactions-part Ii: Default, Foreclosure and Bankruptcy
...1977). 32. Application of Bickel, 14 Ill.App.3d 813, 303 N.E.2d 541, 543 (1973). See also, Siboney Corp. v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 572 S.W.2d 4, 8 (Tex. Civ.App. 1978) ("It is well known that full market value is seldom obtained at forced sales"). 33. See, e.g., Jones v. Bank of Nevada......