Nebraska Revised Statutes
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 69-109 (2026)
Security interest; personal property; sale or transfer without consent; penalty
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person who, after having created any security interest in any article of personal property, either presently owned or after-acquired, for the benefit of another, shall, during the existence of the security interest, sell, transfer, or in any manner dispose of the said personal property, or any part thereof so given as security, to any person or body corporate, without first procuring the consent, in writing, of the owner and holder of the security interest, to any such sale, transfer or disposal, shall be deemed guilty of a Class IV felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1931–1997 · leading case: State v. Hocutt, 300 N.W.2d 198 (Neb. 1981).
State v. Hocutt, 300 N.W.2d 198 (Neb. 1981). “This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court dismissing an information charging the appellee, Don Hocutt, with a violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 69-109 (Cum. Supp. 1980), sale or transfer of personal property, subject to a security interest, without consent.”
Hunt v. State, 11 N.W.2d 533 (Neb. 1943). “Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was found guilty by a jury in the district court for Lincoln county, Nebraska, of the unlawful sale, transfer, and disposal of mortgaged personal property, under section 69-109, Comp. St. 1929. The trial court overruled…”
Pulliam v. State, 94 N.W.2d 51 (Neb. 1959). “Section 69-109, R. R. S. 1943, makes it a crime to sell, transfer, or dispose of mortgaged personal property or any part thereof without consent of the owner or holder of the debt secured by said mortgage, and prescribes a penalty for violation.”
First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Beatrice Nebraska v. Claassen (In re Claassen), 93 B.R. 192 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1988). “See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 69-109 (Reissue 1986). The conduct of John Claassen was thus wrongful, in breach of contract and possibly criminal.”
State v. Jones, 731 P.2d 881 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “Since a defendant could not be convicted of violating Neb. Rev. Stat. § 69-109 (1980 Supp.) absent proof of intent to defraud as a result of judicial precedent, the court found the statute was not unconstitutional.”
Forney v. State, 242 N.W. 441 (Neb. 1932). “The plaintiff in error, Claude Forney, hereafter called the defendant, was convicted of the felonies set out in sections 69-109 and 69-110, Comp. St. 1929, commonly known as selling and removing mortgaged property, which offenses were set out in five counts in the information,…”
Nelson v. State, 238 N.W. 110 (Neb. 1931). “Pope had written her husband such a letter authorizing him to sell the corn.”
Fiehn v. State, 245 N.W. 6 (Neb. 1932). “An information was filed in that case charging him in proper terms with having, on October 25, 1930, after mortgaging certain described corn and during the existence of the lien created thereby, unlawfully sold a portion thereof to Louis Smithberger, without first procuring the…”
Paus Motor Sales, Inc. v. W. Sur. Co., 572 N.W.2d 403 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997). “, supra, banks that had entered into floor plan arrangements and security agreements with dealers were able to recover under motor vehicle dealer’s bonds for the dealers’ sale of vehicles that were “out of trust.”
Mullins v. State, 20 N.W.2d 385 (Neb. 1945). “An information was filed under section 69-109, R. S. 1943, on February 22, 1945.”
Pulliam v. State, 100 N.W.2d 704 (Neb. 1960). “1943, of the crime of removing, permitting, or causing to be removed any personal property out of the county in which such property was situated at the time a mortgage was given thereon, with intent to deprive the owner of the mortgage of his security.”
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.