Legal Opinion

C.I.T. Corp. v. Anwright Corp.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 18, 1987No. B019979PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

COLE, J *

When a creditor fails to give accurate notice of the place of sale of repossessed collateral as required by California Uniform Commercial Code section 9504, subdivision (3), 1 may the creditor resort to the doctrine of substantial compliance so as to preserve the right to a deficiency judgment? When a guarantor waives the right to notice of the sale, prior to the default of the debtor, is the waiver effective? We answer these questions, “no” and affirm the summary judgment from which C.I.T. Corporation (C.I.T.) appeals.

Appellant C.I.T. lent money to respondents Anwright…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Atlas Thrift Co. v. HoranCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  2. United States Ex Rel. Small Business Administration v. MorrisDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
  3. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. LototskyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Rutan v. Summit Sports, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1985
  5. Connolly v. Bank of Sonoma CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. In Re Larry Dean Kirkland and Billie Kirkland, Debtors. Security Pacific National Bank v. Larry Dean Kirkland and Billie KirklandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  2. Gambo v. Bank of MarylandCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  3. Topical Jewelers, Inc. v. Nationsbank, NaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
  4. Canadian Commercial Bank v. Ascher Findley Co.California Court of Appeal · 1991
  5. Backes v. Village Corner, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1987

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API