Legal Opinion
First National Bank v. Didomenico
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided February 6, 1985No. 48, September Term, 1984PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HIGINBOTHOM, Judge.
The question presented here arises under the Secured Transactions Title of the Uniform Commercial Code. Md. Code (1975, 1984 Cum.Supp.), § 9-504(3) of the Commercial Law Article requires a repossessing creditor to give the debtor reasonable notification of the time after which a private sale of the collateral is to be made. In such a notice in this case the creditor added information about redemption which misstated the debtor’s rights unfavorably to the debtor. We shall hold that the notice was not a reasonable one.
Charles E. DiDomenico borrowed funds from First National…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Maryland National Bank v. WathenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
- Richardson Ford Sales, Inc. v. JohnsonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1984
- DiDomenico v. First National BankCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1984
3Cited by15 opinions
- Davenport v. Chrysler Credit Corp.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1991
- Gaynor v. Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Moore v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1994
- Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. IncendySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Pivnick v. White, Getgey & Meyer Co., LPACourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.