Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Sheffield Progressive v. Kingston Tool Co.

10 Mass. App. Ct. 47 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Sheffield Progressive v. Kingston Tool Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Mussetter v. Lyke

    10 F. Supp. 2d 944 (N.D. Ill. 1998)   Cited 15 times
    Recognizing that the price realized for the collateral at a sale and whether the collateral was appraised before the sale are factors to be considered in determining whether the sale was commercially reasonable

    8. It is equally self-evident that a collusive foreclosure sale may be set aside as involving a fraudulent transfer (BFP v. RTC, 511 U.S. 531, 545, 114 S.Ct. 1757, 128 L.Ed.2d 556 (1994)) (interpreting the Bankruptcy Code's fraudulent transfer provision, 11 U.S.C. § 548, which is comparable to UFTA § 4); Garrett v. Walker (In re Garrett, 172 B.R. 29, 30 (Bankr.E.D.Ark. 1994); Bennett v. Genoa Ag Ctr., Inc. (In re Bennett), 154 B.R. 140, 147 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y. 1992); Consumers Credit Union v. Widett (In re Health Gourmet, Inc.), 29 B.R. 673, 676 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1983); Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 47, 405 N.E.2d 985, 987 (1980); accord, analysis in United States v. Shepherd, 834 F. Supp. 175 (N.D.Tex. 1993), though that decision was later reversed for lack of federal jurisdiction to overturn a state forfeiture, 23 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1994)). 9. It must be held here, and this Court concludes, that the transfers at issue involved a collusive foreclosure sale.

  2. Ed Peters Jewelry Co. v. C & J Jewelry Co.

    124 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 1997)   Cited 112 times
    Holding trial court "must perform its gatekeeping function, by assessing whether the testimony 'will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue'" (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 702)

    In the instant case, of course, there is no suggestion that Peters was not in default under its loan restructuring agreement with Fleet. Finally, Peters relies on Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 405 N.E.2d 985 (Mass.App.Ct. 1980), which upheld a denial of a motion to dismiss a "collusive foreclosure" claim that collateral worth over $3 million had been sold in a private foreclosure sale for only $879,159, the full amount of the secured debt. Id. at 987.

  3. Boender v. Chicago North Clubhouse Ass'n

    240 Ill. App. 3d 622 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 23 times
    Finding that improper notice may be inferred where secured creditor purchases collateral for price well below market value as the only bidder at a § 9-504 sale

    The debtor has the right under section 9-507(1) to recover for "any loss caused by a failure to comply" with section 9-504's requirement that the disposition of the collateral be made in a commercially reasonable manner. ( United States v. Conrad Publishing Co. (8th Cir. 1978), 589 F.2d 949, 955; Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co. (Mass. Ct. App. 1980), 405 N.E.2d 985, 988.) The debtor may recover monetary damages.