Okla. Stat. tit. 12A § 1-9-612

Current through Laws 2024, c. 453.
Section 1-9-612 - Timeliness of notification before disposition of collateral
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, whether a notification is sent within a reasonable time is a question of fact.
(b) In a transaction other than a consumer transaction, a notification of disposition sent after default and ten (10) days or more before the earliest time of disposition set forth in the notification is sent within a reasonable time before the disposition.

Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 1-9-612

Added by Laws 2000 , SB 1519, c. 371, § 119, eff. 7/1/2001.

Oklahoma Code Comment

Under old section 9-504(3) , notice of sale was to be sent within a reasonable time prior to the disposition. Under new section 9-612, if the notice is sent after default and at least ten days before the earliest time of disposition, the notice is deemed sent within a reasonable time before the disposition, except in consumer transactions. Under section 9-612, whether the notification is reasonable, if sent less then ten days before the earliest time for disposition, is a question of fact to be determined in each case. Notice sent after default at least ten days before the earliest time for disposition in non consumer transactions is deemed commercially reasonable, but there is no inference for consumer transactions. The new section does not indicate in consumer transactions whether ten days notice is reasonable and does not indicate whether that issue is a question of law or fact. Thus, prior law should continue to apply. While there is no statutory safe harbor for consumer transactions in Oklahoma, the general practice is that ten days notice is sufficient. In addition under revised section 9-603 the parties by agreement may set a standard for the timing of notice provided the standard is not manifestly unreasonable.

Under new section 9-624 after default, the debtor by authenticated agreement may waive the notice requirements of new section 9-612 . The waiver, however, cannot be manifestly unreasonable. See UCC section 1-204 .

In Dynalectron Corporation v. Jack Richards Aircraft Co., 337 F. Supp. 650 (W. D. Okla. 1972), the court held that the question of commercial reasonableness (and, therefore, the question of reasonableness of notice) is a question of law. The court did recognize though that in certain circumstances the time and method of sale may involve questions of fact. The holding in Dynalectron would be limited by new section 9-612 .