Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals Court Questions Notice, Remedies in Cascade Collections v. Corey Repossession Dispute
Summary
In Cascade Collections v. Corey, the court examined whether a repossession‑sale notice that included the original purchase date rather than a future sale date complied with Article 9 §6‑14. Counsel debated whether the omission is a fatal error in consumer cases (absolute bar) or subject to rebuttable presumption/set‑off remedies.
Ronald Lainey, counsel for appellant Alex Corey, told the Utah Court of Appeals that the notice sent by creditor Paramount did not comply with Article 9 §6‑14 because it lacked the statutorily required future sale date. "Under §6‑14 the notice must include the date after which the property will be disposed," Lainey argued, telling the panel that the letter instead listed an earlier purchase date and therefore left the debtor unaware of the redemption deadline.
The court and panelists focused on two narrow but dispositive legal questions: (1) did the district court err in treating the mailing certificate and testimony from a Paramount…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
