Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Repossession Notice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
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 employee (Diane Darling) as sufficient evidence that the notice was mailed, despite inconsistencies in her testimony about the date; and (2) if notice failed to comply with §6‑14, what is the proper remedy in a consumer case—an absolute bar to a deficiency judgment, a rebuttable presumption for recovery, or set‑off/recoupment?
Respondent counsel Chad Rasmussen conceded that the letter contained a date that appeared to be the original purchase or repossession date "in error" but argued the notice was "technically correct" insofar as the sale occurred on or after the stated date and other language in the form indicated a private sale would occur "on or after the sale date listed above." Rasmussen pointed to precedent in which typographical or minor errors did not defeat notice when the context made clear a future disposition was intended.
Appellant argued that for consumer protection the revised Article 9 text imposes mandatory requirements and that courts have applied three different remedies historically—absolute bar, rebuttable presumption, and set‑off—so the choice matters. Lainey asked the panel to treat the omission of a correct future sale date as a fatal error in consumer cases, preventing a creditor from obtaining a deficiency judgment.
The court also explored credibility: the district court found the notice was mailed based on a mailing certificate, but counsel emphasized that the witness could not reliably recall the date and gave conflicting answers. Appellant testified he never received a notice and said that if he had known the redemption deadline he would have attempted to redeem the vehicle during the roughly two‑to‑three months between repossession and sale.
After questioning on statutory construction and prior case law (including Cottom v. Hepner and Concepts Inc. v. First Security Realty Services), the panel thanked counsel and said it would take the matter under advisement and issue an opinion in due course.
