Legal Opinion

Huntington National Bank v. Elkins

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 8, 1990No. 89-1020PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

The narrow issue presented for our review is whether price alone is determinative of “commercial reasonableness.” For the reasons which follow we answer this query in the negative and reverse the court of appeals.

The right of a secured party to dispose of collateral after a debtor’s default is codified at R.C. 1309.47 (U.C.C. 9-504). R.C. 1309.47(C) requires that “* * * every aspect of the disposition including the method, manner, time, place, and terms must be commercially reasonable.” Price alone is not determinative of “commercial reasonableness” in the sale of collateral after a debtor’s…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In Re Zsa Zsa LimitedDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1972
  2. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. PottsOhio Supreme Court · 1989

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. First Natl. Bank of Cincinnati v. CianelliOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
  2. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. RussellCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
  3. Kruse v. Voyager Insurance CompaniesOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Kruse v. Voyager Ins. Cos.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Commercial Sav. Bank v. Fronks Serv. Ctr., 5-07-38 (6-2-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008

1 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