Coxall v. Clover Commercial Corp.
4 Misc. 3d 654, 781 NYS 2d 567 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A secured creditor in a consumer-goods transaction who fails to provide reasonable notification and conduct a commercially reasonable disposition of repossessed collateral is absolutely barred from recovering a deficiency judgment. The debtor remains liable for payments missed prior to repossession and is entitled to statutory damages for the creditor's non-compliance under UCC § 9-625.
Facts:
- On October 21, 2002, Jason and Utho Coxall purchased a 1991 Lexus from Jafas Auto Sales for a cash price of $8,100, making a down payment of $3,798.25.
- The Coxalls financed the remaining balance of $4,970 through a retail installment contract, which was immediately assigned to Clover Commercial Corp.
- Soon after the purchase, the vehicle experienced mechanical difficulties, and the Coxalls subsequently made no monthly payments on the contract.
- On February 19, 2003, Clover Commercial repossessed the vehicle.
- On February 20, 2003, Clover mailed letters to Jason Coxall giving notice that the vehicle would be sold in a private sale after March 3, 2003.
- On March 3, 2003, Clover sold the Lexus back to the original seller, Jafas Auto Sales, for $1,500.
- On April 22, 2003, Clover demanded that Jason Coxall pay a remaining balance of $4,998.09.
Procedural Posture:
- Jason Coxall initiated 'Action No. 1' by suing Clover Commercial in the Civil Court of the City of New York for illegal repossession.
- Clover Commercial filed an answer in Action No. 1.
- Clover Commercial then commenced 'Action No. 2' against Jason and Utho Coxall in the same court, seeking a deficiency judgment for the remaining balance on the loan.
- Clover Commercial obtained a default judgment against the Coxalls in Action No. 2 after they failed to appear.
- Jason Coxall moved to vacate the default judgment.
- The parties entered a stipulation to vacate the default judgment and consolidate both actions for a joint trial before the Civil Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under New York's Uniform Commercial Code Article 9, is a secured creditor who fails to provide reasonable notification and conduct a commercially reasonable sale of repossessed consumer goods barred from recovering a deficiency judgment from the debtor?
Opinions:
Majority - Jack M. Battaglia, J.
Yes, a secured creditor who fails to comply with the UCC's requirements for notice and commercial reasonableness in disposing of repossessed consumer goods is barred from recovering a deficiency judgment. The court found that Clover Commercial failed on both counts. The notification was defective because it did not contain all statutorily required information, such as the debtor's right to an accounting. The disposition was not commercially reasonable because the sale price of $1,500 was a marked discrepancy from the $8,100 purchase price just four months earlier, and Clover provided no evidence of its sales procedures or efforts to obtain a fair price. While revised UCC Article 9 applies a 'rebuttable presumption' rule to non-consumer transactions, it leaves the rule for consumer transactions to the courts. This court, following Second Department precedent, applied the stricter 'absolute bar' rule, which completely precludes a non-complying creditor from recovering a deficiency in a consumer transaction.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the 'absolute bar' rule for consumer transactions in New York's Second Department, even after the revision of UCC Article 9. It maintains a heightened level of protection for consumer debtors compared to commercial debtors, who fall under the more lenient 'rebuttable presumption' standard. The ruling serves as a strong deterrent for lenders, emphasizing that strict compliance with notice and commercial reasonableness standards is a prerequisite to recovering any deficiency. This precedent reinforces the judicial scrutiny applied to repossession sales, especially where low sale prices and potential self-dealing are present.
Unlock the full brief for Coxall v. Clover Commercial Corp.