Illinois Compiled Statutes
810 ILCS 5/9-611 (2026)
Notification before disposition of collateral
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/9-611)
Sec. 9-611. Notification before disposition of collateral. (a) "Notification date." In this Section, "notification date" means the earlier of the date on which: (1) a secured party sends to the debtor and any | secondary obligor a signed notification of disposition; or |
(2) the debtor and any secondary obligor waive the | right to notification. |
(b) Notification of disposition required. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d), a secured party that disposes of collateral under Section 9-610 shall send to the persons specified in subsection (c) a reasonable signed notification of disposition. (c) Persons to be notified. To comply with subsection (b), the secured party shall send a signed notification of disposition to: (1) the debtor; (2) any secondary obligor; and (3) if the collateral is other than consumer goods: (A) any other person from which the secured party | has received, before the notification date, a signed notification of a claim of an interest in the collateral; |
(B) any other secured party or lienholder that, | 10 days before the notification date, held a security interest in or other lien on the collateral perfected by the filing of a financing statement that: |
(i) identified the collateral; (ii) was indexed under the debtor's name as | of that date; and |
(iii) was filed in the office in which to | file a financing statement against the debtor covering the collateral as of that date; and |
(C) any other secured party that, 10 days before | the notification date, held a security interest in the collateral perfected by compliance with a statute, regulation, or treaty described in Section 9-311(a). |
(d) Subsection (b) inapplicable: perishable collateral; recognized market. Subsection (b) does not apply if the collateral is perishable or threatens to decline speedily in value or is of a type customarily sold on a recognized market. (e) Compliance with subsection (c)(3)(B). A secured party complies with the requirement for notification prescribed by subsection (c)(3)(B) if: (1) not later than 20 days or earlier than 30 days | before the notification date, the secured party requests, in a commercially reasonable manner, information concerning financing statements indexed under the debtor's name in the office indicated in subsection (c)(3)(B); and |
(2) before the notification date, the secured party: (A) did not receive a response to the request for | information; or |
(B) received a response to the request for | information and sent a signed notification of disposition to each secured party or other lienholder named in that response whose financing statement covered the collateral. |
(Source: P.A. 103-1036, eff. 1-1-25.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Rutili v. O'Neill, 468 B.R. 308 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2012).
Rutili v. O'Neill, 468 B.R. 308 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2012). “In the same year as the Judgment, on December 7, 2009, John O’Neill signed and caused to be delivered to Defendant Husband and Defendant Wife a Notice of Intended Disposition of Collateral Pursuant to 810 ILCS 5/9-611 listing John as the Secured Party and Pilgrim Companies as…”
In the Matter Of: James E. Hovis & James E. Hovis Trust No. 90, Debtors-Appellants, 356 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2004). “Hovis complains that, despite the UCC’s requirements (implemented in Illinois by 810 ILCS 5/9-611), he did not receive notice of the Bank’s sale of the stock and did not learn of it until some months after the Bank filed its proof of claim.”
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Cartwright, 2025 IL App (5th) 240636-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “She further alleged that Credit Acceptance’s presale and post-sale notices were unreasonable, misleading, and violated UCC sections 9-611, 9-613, 9-614, and 9-616 (810 ILCS 5/9-611, 9-613, 9-614, 9-616 (West 2022)).”
Gen. Motors Aceptance Corp. v. Stoval (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “On appeal, GMAC contends that the circuit court erred in granting judgment in favor of defendant where the court improperly applied notice provisions under section 9-611 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (as enacted by Illinois, 810 ILCS 5/9-611 (West 2002)); the court…”
Landmark Credit Union v. Burnidge, 2024 IL App (2d) 240123-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “After providing defendant with notice of its plan to sell the vehicle per section 9-611 of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (810 ILCS 5/9-611 (West 2020)), which included notice of defendant’s redemption rights, plaintiff sold the vehicle.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Smith & Co., Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2023). “See 810 ILCS 5/9-611(b), (c). Further, plaintiff emphasizes that sending a notice of sale via Federal Express is “not materially different from sending notice via certified mail,” and Illinois law does not require a particular method of transport.”
— 810 ILCS 5/9-611(b) — 2 cases
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Smith & Co., Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2023). “See 810 ILCS 5/9-611(b), (c). Further, plaintiff emphasizes that sending a notice of sale via Federal Express is “not materially different from sending notice via certified mail,” and Illinois law does not require a particular method of transport.”
Gen. Motors Aceptance Corp. v. Stoval (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “On appeal, GMAC contends that the circuit court erred in granting judgment in favor of defendant where the court improperly applied notice provisions under section 9-611 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (as enacted by Illinois, 810 ILCS 5/9-611 (West 2002)); the court…”
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.
|