679.627
Determination of whether conduct was commercially reasonable.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
679.627 Determination of whether conduct was commercially reasonable.—
(1) The fact that a greater amount could have been obtained by a collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance at a different time or in a different method from that selected by the secured party is not of itself sufficient to preclude the secured party from establishing that the collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance was made in a commercially reasonable manner.
(2) A disposition of collateral is made in a commercially reasonable manner if the disposition is made:
(a) In the usual manner on any recognized market;
(b) At the price current in any recognized market at the time of the disposition; or
(c) Otherwise in conformity with reasonable commercial practices among dealers in the type of property that was the subject of the disposition.
(3) A collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance is commercially reasonable if it has been approved:
(a) In a judicial proceeding;
(b) By a bona fide creditors’ committee;
(c) By a representative of creditors; or
(d) By an assignee for the benefit of creditors.
(4) Approval under subsection (3) need not be obtained, and lack of approval does not mean that the collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance is not commercially reasonable.
History.—s. 7, ch. 2001-198.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 2008–2019 · leading case: Textron Financial Corp. v. Lentine Marine Inc.
Textron Financial Corp. v. Lentine Marine Inc. (2009)
“In support of its argument, Plaintiff cites § 679.627(1), Florida Statutes. However, that provision states only that The fact that a greater amount could have been obtained by a disposition .”
Burley v. Gelco Corp. (2008)
“" § 679.627(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005). [3] Accordingly, this affidavit was insufficient to establish a prima facie showing that Gelco disposed of the vehicles in conformity with reasonable commercial practices.”
Southern Developers & Earthmoving, Inc. v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. (2011)
“” § 679.627(2)(e). *61 Here, CAT’s pleadings and its affidavit in support of its motion for summary judgment specifically alleged that its sales of the repossessed equipment were commercially reasonable.”
Tropical Jewelers Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. ex rel. NationsBank, N.A. (2009)
“This statute has been renumbered and is now section 679.627, Florida Statutes (2009).”
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…”
Comerica Bank v. Mann (2013)
“” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 679.627 (2)(c); see also Gepetto’s Tale O’ the Whale of Fort Lauderdale, Inc.”
— 679.627(1) — 1 case
Textron Financial Corp. v. Lentine Marine Inc. (2009)
“In support of its argument, Plaintiff cites § 679.627(1), Florida Statutes. However, that provision states only that The fact that a greater amount could have been obtained by a disposition .”
— 679.627(2) — 2 cases
Textron Financial Corp. v. Lentine Marine Inc. (2009)
“In support of its argument, Plaintiff cites § 679.627(1), Florida Statutes. However, that provision states only that The fact that a greater amount could have been obtained by a disposition .”
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…”
— 679.627(2)(c) — 1 case
Burley v. Gelco Corp. (2008)
“" § 679.627(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005). [3] Accordingly, this affidavit was insufficient to establish a prima facie showing that Gelco disposed of the vehicles in conformity with reasonable commercial practices.”
— 679.627(2)(e) — 1 case
Southern Developers & Earthmoving, Inc. v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. (2011)
“” § 679.627(2)(e). *61 Here, CAT’s pleadings and its affidavit in support of its motion for summary judgment specifically alleged that its sales of the repossessed equipment were commercially reasonable.”
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.