Don Jenkins & Son Ford-Mercury, Inc. v. Catlette
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
Defendants argue that the resale of the repossessed car in this case was not “commercially reasonable” as that term is defined in G.S. 25-9-504(3), and that the selling price should be $6,995, which would reduce the deficiency judgment against them.
G.S. 25-9-504(2) allows plaintiff, a secured party, to recover a deficiency from defendant debtors, when property subject to a security interest is repossessed and sold for less than the amount of the debt. But G.S. 25-9-504(3) requires that “every aspect of the disposition including the method, manner, time, place and terms must be…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Knutton v. CofieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Williams v. Pilot Life Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- North Carolina National Bank v. BurnetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- ITT-Industrial Credit Co. v. Milo Concrete Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
- Hodges v. NortonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Greathouse v. Charter National Bank-SouthwestTexas Supreme Court · 1992
- Thrower v. Union Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
- Gregory Poole Equipment Co. v. MurrayCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
- Fritts v. SelvaisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
- Elk River Ford, Inc. v. HoecherlCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.