Utah Code
Utah Code § 70A-9a-611 (2026)
Notification before disposition of collateral
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In this section, "notification date" means the earlier of the date on which:
a secured party sends to the debtor and any secondary obligor a signed notification of disposition; or
the debtor and any secondary obligor waive the right to notification.
Except as otherwise provided in Subsection (4), a secured party that disposes of collateral under Section 70A-9a-610 shall send to the persons specified in Subsection (3) a reasonable signed notification of disposition.
To comply with Subsection (2), the secured party shall send a signed notification of disposition to:
the debtor;
any secondary obligor; and
if the collateral is other than consumer goods:
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;
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:
identified the collateral;
was indexed under the debtor's name as of that date; and
was filed in the office in which to file a financing statement against the debtor covering the collateral as of that date; and
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 Subsection 70A-9a-311(1).
Subsection (2) 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.
A secured party complies with the requirement for notification prescribed by Subsection (3)(c)(ii) if:
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 (3)(c)(ii); and
before the notification date, the secured party:
did not receive a response to the request for information; or
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2017–2025 · leading case: Richard Kinzel v. Bank of Am., 850 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2017).
Richard Kinzel v. Bank of Am., 850 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2017). “The Kinzels argue that § 70A-9a-611 operates to invalidate the provision in the remedy-events clause (Clause 7) that allows Merrill Lynch to liquidate collateral upon the occurrence of a remedy event without first making a demand for repayment.”
Cascade Collections v. Corray, 2025 UT App 9 (Utah Ct. App. 2025). “§ 70A-9a-611(2), (3). In this case, the parties take different positions as to whether any such notification was sent: Corray claims that he never received any such notification, but Paramount claims—supported by Manager’s testimony, as well as her “contact log” and a…”
Utah Code § 70A-9a-611(2): 2 cases
Richard Kinzel v. Bank of Am., 850 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2017). “The Kinzels argue that § 70A-9a-611 operates to invalidate the provision in the remedy-events clause (Clause 7) that allows Merrill Lynch to liquidate collateral upon the occurrence of a remedy event without first making a demand for repayment.”
Cascade Collections v. Corray, 2025 UT App 9 (Utah Ct. App. 2025). “§ 70A-9a-611(2), (3). In this case, the parties take different positions as to whether any such notification was sent: Corray claims that he never received any such notification, but Paramount claims—supported by Manager’s testimony, as well as her “contact log” and a…”
Utah Code § 70A-9a-611(4): 1 case
Richard Kinzel v. Bank of Am., 850 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2017). “The Kinzels argue that § 70A-9a-611 operates to invalidate the provision in the remedy-events clause (Clause 7) that allows Merrill Lynch to liquidate collateral upon the occurrence of a remedy event without first making a demand for repayment.”
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.