Legal Opinion

Security State Bank v. Burk

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided March 24, 2000No. 24611-2-IIPublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeinfeld, J.

— RCW 62A.9-504(3) of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) requires a creditor to dispose of a defaulting debtor’s collateral in a “commercially reasonable” manner. We hold that an Article 9 guarantor may assert noncompliance with this requirement as an affirmative defense to a creditor action to enforce the guaranty, notwithstanding the guarantor’s waiver of defenses arising out of the creditor’s “unjustified impairment” of the collateral. Because the guarantors here, Fred and Randelle Burk, raised an issue of material fact as to creditor Security State Bank’s commercially reasonable…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Taggart v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  2. National Bank v. Equity InvestorsWashington Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Bishop v. MicheWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Brown v. Safeway Stores, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Bishop v. MicheWashington Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Keck v. CollinsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  2. AAR Aircraft & Engine Group, Inc. v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
  3. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. ReikowCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  4. Security State Bank v. BurkCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  5. Capital Investment Corp. v. King CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002

6 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