Toledo Trust Co. v. Aldrich

3 Citing cases

  1. Kruse v. Voyager Insurance Companies

    72 Ohio St. 3d 192 (Ohio 1995)   Cited 7 times
    In Kruse, the Ohio Supreme Court held that even if a sale itself is "commercially reasonable," a failure to provide adequate notice of the sale of the collateral to the debtor as required in former R.C. 1309.47 still implicates the statutory damages provided in R.C. 1309.50(A).

    Initially, we note that the trial court's decision that Fifth Third's failure to provide adequate notice of the sale served as an absolute bar to Fifth Third's right to collect a deficiency judgment was in accord with the prevailing view taken by courts of appeals in Ohio at the time the events underlying this litigation occurred. See, e.g., Horizon Savings v. Wootton (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 501, 503, 597 N.E.2d 1150, 1151; Toledo Trust Co. v. Aldrich (1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 189, 193, 583 N.E.2d 371, 374; Liberty Natl. Bank of Fremont v. Greiner (1978), 62 Ohio App.2d 125, 132-133, 16 O.O.3d 291, 296-297, 405 N.E.2d 317, 323-324. The "absolute bar" rule applied in the above cases is one of several approaches the courts of the various states have applied when determining whether a debtor who receives inadequate notice of the disposition of repossessed collateral is liable for a deficiency judgment.

  2. Soc. Bank Trust v. Hickle

    82 Ohio App. 3d 406 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)

    Based upon our review of these statutory provisions and the foregoing case authority, it is our conclusion that the notice provisions of R.C. 1317.16 are not applicable to the loan transaction in the case before us. As noted earlier, in arriving at the contrary conclusion, the trial court relied exclusively upon our decision in Toledo Trust Co. v. Aldrich (1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 189, 583 N.E.2d 371, wherein we also addressed the disposition of loan collateral by a lending institution. In that case, the notices sent to the debtor were defective for stating the wrong date of sale, which we found to be violative of the notice requirements of both R.C. 1309.47 and 1317.16.

  3. Fid. Financial Serv., Inc. v. Wilson

    63 Ohio Misc. 2d 523 (Ohio Misc. 1994)

    Some courts have held that a creditor's failure to comply with the notice requirements of R.C. 1309.47(C) stands as an absolute bar to recovering a deficiency judgment. Toledo Trust Co. v. Aldrich (1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 189, 583 N.E.2d 371. Moreover, R.C. 1309.47(C) has been interpreted to mean that a secured creditor must take reasonable steps to notify the debtor of his intentions to resell certain repossessed collateral.