(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) of this section need not be obtained, and lack of approval does not mean that the collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance is not commercially reasonable. Effective: July 1, 2001 History: Created 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 408, sec. 145, effective July 1, 2001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case:
Fifth Third Bank v. Miller, 767 F. Supp. 2d 735 (E.D. Ky. 2011).
Fifth Third Bank v. Miller, 767 F. Supp. 2d 735 (E.D. Ky. 2011).
· cites it 6× “§ 355.9-627 provides that “[t]he 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…”
Elemental Processing, LLC v. Amerra Capital Mgmt., LLC (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” 8 KRS 355.9-627 (U.C.C. § 9-627) (“Determination of whether conduct was commercially reasonable”) states, in pertinent part: -10- objection to the sale process or bid procedures prior to the sale, and AMERRA submitted the higher of the two bids received (after proper…”
Marion Puckett v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “KRS 355.9-627(1). Rather, a disposition is commercially reasonable if it was 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…”
Reid v. Atlas Cars, Inc. (W.D. Ky. 2024).
· cites it 2× “One®! issue to be resolved is whether under KRS § 355.9-627(2) a debtor can (1) prophylactically prevent a deficiency judgment, and (2) use the statute to expunge their credit report.”
Am. Coal Terminal, Inc. v. Midcap Funding Xvii Trust (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “See KRS 355.9-627(1). But, it asserted that this alleged disparity, -10- paired with the dearth of information MidCap had provided regarding its marketing and sales procedures prior to and during the November 15, 2022 nonjudicial sale, warranted additional time to conduct…”
Harrington v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 270 S.W.3d 405 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
“Fifth Third, which was the secured party at the time the vehicle was sold, was not made a party to this lawsuit, nor has there been any evidence presented to show that Fifth Third’s sale of the vehicle was commercially reasonable under KRS 355.9-627. Asset cannot defeat a…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-627(1) — 2 cases
Marion Puckett v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“KRS 355.9-627(1). Rather, a disposition is commercially reasonable if it was 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…”
Am. Coal Terminal, Inc. v. Midcap Funding Xvii Trust (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
“See KRS 355.9-627(1). But, it asserted that this alleged disparity, -10- paired with the dearth of information MidCap had provided regarding its marketing and sales procedures prior to and during the November 15, 2022 nonjudicial sale, warranted additional time to conduct…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-627(2) — 4 cases
Reid v. Atlas Cars, Inc. (W.D. Ky. 2024).
“One®! issue to be resolved is whether under KRS § 355.9-627(2) a debtor can (1) prophylactically prevent a deficiency judgment, and (2) use the statute to expunge their credit report.”
Fifth Third Bank v. Miller, 767 F. Supp. 2d 735 (E.D. Ky. 2011).
“§ 355.9-627 provides that “[t]he 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…”
Marion Puckett v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“KRS 355.9-627(1). Rather, a disposition is commercially reasonable if it was 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…”
Am. Coal Terminal, Inc. v. Midcap Funding Xvii Trust (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
“See KRS 355.9-627(1). But, it asserted that this alleged disparity, -10- paired with the dearth of information MidCap had provided regarding its marketing and sales procedures prior to and during the November 15, 2022 nonjudicial sale, warranted additional time to conduct…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-627(3)(a) — 1 case
Elemental Processing, LLC v. Amerra Capital Mgmt., LLC (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“” 8 KRS 355.9-627 (U.C.C. § 9-627) (“Determination of whether conduct was commercially reasonable”) states, in pertinent part: -10- objection to the sale process or bid procedures prior to the sale, and AMERRA submitted the higher of the two bids received (after proper…”
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.