679.626
Action in which deficiency or surplus is in issue.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
679.626 Action in which deficiency or surplus is in issue.—In an action arising from a transaction in which the amount of a deficiency or surplus is in issue, the following rules apply:
(1) A secured party need not prove compliance with the provisions of this part relating to collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance unless the debtor or a secondary obligor places the secured party’s compliance in issue.
(2) If the secured party’s compliance is placed in issue, the secured party has the burden of establishing that the collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance was conducted in accordance with this part.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in s. 679.628, if a secured party fails to prove that the collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance was conducted in accordance with the provisions of this part relating to collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance, the liability of a debtor or a secondary obligor for a deficiency is limited to an amount by which the sum of the secured obligation, reasonable expenses, and, to the extent provided for by agreement and not prohibited by law, attorney’s fees exceeds the greater of:
(a) The proceeds of the collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance; or
(b) The amount of proceeds that would have been realized had the noncomplying secured party proceeded in accordance with the provisions of this part relating to collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance.
(4) For purposes of paragraph (3)(b), the amount of proceeds that would have been realized is equal to the sum of the secured obligation, expenses, and attorney’s fees unless the secured party proves that the amount is less than that sum.
(5) If a deficiency or surplus is calculated under s. 679.615(6), the debtor or obligor has the burden of establishing that the amount of proceeds of the disposition is significantly below the range of prices that a complying disposition to a person other than the secured party, a person related to the secured party, or a secondary obligor would have brought.
History.—s. 7, ch. 2001-198; s. 165, ch. 2025-92.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 2008–2019 · leading case: Textron Financial Corp. v. Lentine Marine Inc.
Textron Financial Corp. v. Lentine Marine Inc. (2009)
“Under § 679.626, Florida Statutes commercial reasonableness need merely be “placed in issue” for the burden to shift to Plaintiff.”
Burley v. Gelco Corp. (2008)
“" § 679.626(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). Mr. Burley obviously placed Gelco's compliance at issue; he argued successfully below that Gelco's notice was inadequate.”
Southern Developers & Earthmoving, Inc. v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. (2011)
“See § 679.626(2); see also Weiner, 482 So.2d at 1364-65 ; Burley, 976 So.”
Comerica Bank v. Mann (2013)
“See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 679.626 (2); see also Caterpillar, 56 So.”
Ford Motor Credit Company LLC v. Thomas Arwine (2019)
“Disposition of collateral is commercially reasonable if it is made in the usual manner in a recognized market, made at the price current in any recognized market at the time of the disposition, or otherwise in conformity with reasonable practices among dealers in the type of…”
— 679.626(1) — 1 case
Ford Motor Credit Company LLC v. Thomas Arwine (2019)
“Disposition of collateral is commercially reasonable if it is made in the usual manner in a recognized market, made at the price current in any recognized market at the time of the disposition, or otherwise in conformity with reasonable practices among dealers in the type of…”
— 679.626(2) — 3 cases
Textron Financial Corp. v. Lentine Marine Inc. (2009)
“Under § 679.626, Florida Statutes commercial reasonableness need merely be “placed in issue” for the burden to shift to Plaintiff.”
Burley v. Gelco Corp. (2008)
“" § 679.626(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). Mr. Burley obviously placed Gelco's compliance at issue; he argued successfully below that Gelco's notice was inadequate.”
Southern Developers & Earthmoving, Inc. v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. (2011)
“See § 679.626(2); see also Weiner, 482 So.2d at 1364-65 ; Burley, 976 So.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.