States Resources Corp. v. Gregory
339 S.W.3d 591
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Jeff Gregory defaulted on a consumer promissory note secured by a 2001 Ford F-250 and a 1998 Lumina; FDIC, as receiver, owned/held the note and assigned it to States Resources Corp.
- The FDIC/Respondent sent a September 24, 2008 FRIGHT TO CURE letter by certified and regular mail, notifying a 21-day cure period and the cure amount, but the letter did not disclose disposition of the collateral.
- Respondent repossessed the vehicle on October 19, 2008; on October 20, 2008, the truck was repossessed and a redemption period and sale timeline were communicated in a second notice.
- The truck was sold after October 20, 2008 at a private dealer-only auction for a net $6,890, and proceeds were applied to the loan balance.
- As of November 9, 2009, the outstanding balance and accrued amounts totaled $13,073.78; Respondent filed a petition for deficiency on January 4, 2010 and sought summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Respondent meet the statutorily mandated notice requirements for disposition of collateral? | Gregory argues notice was deficient under §400.9-614. | States Resources contends September 24 and October 20 notices satisfy requirements. | No; notice failed strict compliance; deficiency judgment not permitted. |
| Should the September 24 letter be treated as part of the disposition notice? | Gregory contends it could be part of disposition notice since it contains some required info. | Respondent argues it is not a disposition notice because disposition was not yet impending. | No; September 24 letter cannot constitute notice of disposition. |
| Did the October 20 letter independently meet the notice requirements? | Gregory contends it lacked an accounting, deficiency description, and correct sale details. | Respondent asserts it substantially complied with notice requirements. | No; October 20 letter failed to provide an accounting, a deficiency description, and correct disposition details. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chrysler Capital Corp. v. Cotlar, 762 S.W.2d 859 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989) (strict compliance required for consumer-goods notices; notice must apprise debtor of sale details)
- Mancuso v. Long Beach Acceptance Corp., 254 S.W.3d 88 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (strict compliance favored debtor; doubt resolved in debtor's favor)
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standards; general framework for appellate review)