Dorman v. Morris

3 Citing cases

  1. Valley Commercial Capital, LLC v. Rader Aviation, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-26862 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 7, 2015)

    Whether the plaintiff has acted in a commercially reasonable manner is not an issue currently before the court, given that disposition of the collateral has yet to take place. See Dorman v. Morris, 519 N.W.2d 685, 687 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994) (noting that whether the plaintiffs acted with commercial reasonableness is not currently at issue). "The only issue before this [c]ourt is whether the [plaintiff] is entitled to a money judgment in the full amount of the indebtedness of the Note[.

  2. Ford Motor Co. v. Heinrich

    No. 2010AP2591 (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2011)

    ¶ 12 Admittedly, there are no reported Wisconsin cases discussing the application of claim preclusion to lawsuits by secured creditors. However, in Dorman v. Morris, 185 Wis. 2d 845, 846-47, 519 N.W.2d 685 (Ct. App. 1994), we considered whether a secured creditor may retain a debtor's collateral while maintaining an independent action for a money judgment. We concluded that "a creditor in possession of a debtor's collateral may employ a number of different remedial steps until the debt is satisfied and the creditor is made whole[,]" including seeking a money judgment.

  3. Okefenokee Aircraft v. Primesouth Bank

    676 S.E.2d 394 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that the Bank's "election to repossess the collateral and then to file suit on the Note without first disposing of the collateral" was proper under the terms of the Note and the UCC

    We note that other jurisdictions that have considered this issue have reached the same result. See generally Center Capital Corp. v. Marlin Air, 2008 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 27766 (E.D. Mich. 2008); Dorman v. Morris, 519 NW2d 685 (Wise. App. 1994); Kimura v. Wauford, 715 P2d 451 (N.M. 1986). See also McDonnell, J, 1B-8 Secured Transactions Under the UCC § 8.03.