Connex Credit Union v. Thibodeau
208 Conn. App. 861
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2021Background
- Defendant borrowed ~$19,993 secured by a 2013 Kia Rio; defaulted after October 2017 and asked the creditor to repossess a damaged vehicle in January 2018.
- Plaintiff (Connex Credit Union) sent a January 17, 2018 "Right to Redeem and Notice of Sale" presale notice that listed detailed account components (principal, interest, per diem, fees, repossession cost) and invited contact.
- Plaintiff sold the vehicle on February 28, 2018 for $4,000; postsale notice (March 20, 2018) informed defendant of sale, sale price below balance, and possible deficiency; postsale notice included contact info.
- Plaintiff applied insurance proceeds and other credits, then sued for breach of contract and deficiency; defendant asserted special defenses including alleged failures under UCC article 9 and RISFA.
- At bench trial plaintiff presented a collections manager who testified about vehicle condition and value; defendant presented no valuation evidence. Trial court awarded plaintiff damages; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the presale notice satisfy UCC requirement to state debtor is entitled to an accounting? | Plaintiff: providing an actual, itemized accounting (free of charge) exceeds the statute's requirement and satisfies it. | Defendant: statute requires explicit language that debtor is "entitled to an accounting" and the notice failed to state that right. | Held: Affirmed for plaintiff — actual accounting in presale notice satisfied §§42a-9-613(1)(D) and 42a-9-614(1)(A); phrasing not required and additional info is permitted. |
| 2. Did the presale notice provide a telephone number to learn the total redemption payoff as required by §42a-9-614(1)(C)? | Plaintiff: provided contact information and invitation to call (postsale and presale contained contact). | Defendant: lacked a number to determine full redemption amount (repossession agent storage fee contact missing). | Held: Not reached on merits — claim was not preserved (first raised in posttrial brief; record inadequate for review). |
| 3. Did postsale notice comply with RISFA §36a-785(e) by itemizing disposition of proceeds? | Plaintiff: postsale notice and trial evidence adequately described proceeds; no preserved objection at trial. | Defendant: postsale notice failed to provide required written itemization of disposition of proceeds. | Held: Not reviewed on merit — claim not preserved (raised first posttrial). |
| 4. Must creditor credit debtor with the statutory NADA-based fair market value per §36a-785(g) or may it credit actual sale proceeds? | Plaintiff: §36a-785(g) creates a rebuttable prima facie fair market value; creditor may rebut with direct in-court testimony and use actual sale price. | Defendant: creditor must credit the statutory fair market value; failure to do so bars deficiency recovery. | Held: For plaintiff — statutory NADA value is a rebuttable presumption; creditor rebutted it with testimony about damage and sale price; plaintiff did not violate §36a-785(g). |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Tindill, 208 Conn. App. 255 (statutory interpretation principles and plenary review)
- Byrne v. Spurling, 105 Conn. App. 99 (preservation and need for factual findings when record is inadequate)
- Carroll v. Yankwitt, 203 Conn. App. 449 (refusal to review issues first raised posttrial; preservation rationale)
- AS Peleus, LLC v. Success, Inc., 162 Conn. App. 750 (declining review of issues raised only in posttrial briefing)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fratarcangeli, 192 Conn. App. 159 (plenary review regarding UCC notice requirements)