Legal Opinion · Dissent

Farmers State Bank of Parkston v. Otten

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1973No. File 10884Published

1DissentWinans, Justice

*171It is my opinion that the bank and Weiss complied with the requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) in foreclosing their security interest. Thus, for all of the reasons indicated below, I would affirm the decision of the trial court.

First of all, the steps taken by the bank to foreclose its security interest complied with the U.C.C. Pursuant to SDCL 57-39-8, as well as the terms of the security agreement, the bank had the right to possession of the collateral after Otten defaulted on the security agreement. After taking possession of the collateral, the bank sought to foreclose…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Olsen v. Valley National Bank of AuroraAppellate Court of Illinois · 1968
  2. In Re Adrian Research & Chemical CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API