Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 11
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 9-507 (2026)

Secured party's liability for failure to comply with this part

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1999, c. 699, §A1 (RP). PL 1999, c. 699, §A4 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1979–1999 · leading case: Union Trust Co. of Ellsworth v. Hardy, 400 A.2d 384 (Me. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Union Trust Co. of Ellsworth v. Hardy, 400 A.2d 384 (Me. 1979). · cites it 2× “While defendant pleads this, under the label “affirmative defense”, as a bar to plaintiffs recovery of the deficiency, again using the “affirmative defense” designation, defendant avers that plaintiff “is liable to the defendant for the statutory penalties set forth at 11…”
Leighton v. Fleet Bank of Maine, 634 A.2d 453 (Me. 1993). “1973); see also 11 M.R.S.A. § 9-507 (1964). In order for any of the rules regarding the disposition of collateral to come into effect, however, the creditor must actually take possession of the collateral.”
Ocean Nat'l Bank of Kennebunk v. Odell, 444 A.2d 422 (Me. 1982). “) 11 M.R.S.A. § 9-507, Comment 1, see 11 M.”
Hamill v. Liberty, 1999 ME 32 (Me. 1999). “Article Nine also allowed the defendants to seek an order enjoining the sales, or to seek damages from the plaintiff, if the manner or terms of the sales were commercially unreasonable.”
Galligan v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. (In Re Galligan), 10 B.R. 841 (Bankr. D. Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “Comment 2 to 11 M.R.S.A. § 9-507 suggests that the wholesale market is the appropriate measure in situations like that before the Court: .”
Maine Nat'l Bank v. Jopet Jewelers, Inc., 538 A.2d 270 (Me. 1988). “11 M.R.S.A. § 9-507 (1964), Comment 1, id.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 9-507(1) — 2 cases
Union Trust Co. of Ellsworth v. Hardy, 400 A.2d 384 (Me. 1979). “While defendant pleads this, under the label “affirmative defense”, as a bar to plaintiffs recovery of the deficiency, again using the “affirmative defense” designation, defendant avers that plaintiff “is liable to the defendant for the statutory penalties set forth at 11…”
Hamill v. Liberty, 1999 ME 32 (Me. 1999). “Article Nine also allowed the defendants to seek an order enjoining the sales, or to seek damages from the plaintiff, if the manner or terms of the sales were commercially unreasonable.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 9-507(2) — 1 case
Galligan v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. (In Re Galligan), 10 B.R. 841 (Bankr. D. Me. 1981). “Comment 2 to 11 M.R.S.A. § 9-507 suggests that the wholesale market is the appropriate measure in situations like that before 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.