In re: Cannon Boat Yard, Inc. [1992]

143 B.R. 270 · United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio · United States

Secured Transactions (Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code)secured-transactions-article-9-of-the-uniform-commercial-codeSecured Transactions (Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code)Noncomplying disposition of collateral / secured party's liability

Issue

Whether the secured party is liable for damages for not complying with the reasonable notification requirement of § 9-611.

Held

Yes, the secured party failed to give reasonable notification to the debtor, rendering the sale commercially unreasonable; the debtor was entitled to damages equal to the deficiency or surplus lost.

Exam use

In an exam, introduce In re: Cannon Boat Yard, Inc. with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what In re: Cannon Boat Yard, Inc. decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Noncomplying disposition of collateral / secured party's liability, then move quickly to analysis.

Summary

In re: Cannon Boat Yard, Inc. is included in the Secured Transactions (Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code) case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Noncomplying disposition of collateral / secured party's liability. The reported citation is 143 B.R. 270, and the decision is associated with United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.

Facts

The material factual signal for In re: Cannon Boat Yard, Inc. is: After default, secured party sold repossessed collateral at a private sale without giving the debtor reasonable notice of the time and place of sale. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Secured Transactions (Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code), use the facts to explain why Noncomplying disposition of collateral / secured party's liability was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.

Procedural History

In re: Cannon Boat Yard, Inc. is reported as a decision of United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.

Issue

Whether the secured party is liable for damages for not complying with the reasonable notification requirement of § 9-611.

Held

Yes, the secured party failed to give reasonable notification to the debtor, rendering the sale commercially unreasonable; the debtor was entitled to damages equal to the deficiency or surplus lost.

Ratio Decidendi

A secured party must act in a commercially reasonable manner when disposing of collateral after default, including giving the debtor reasonable notification of the time and place of a public sale or the time after which a private sale will occur.

Obiter Dicta

Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.

Reasoning

For reasoning, start with the ratio: A secured party must act in a commercially reasonable manner when disposing of collateral after default, including giving the debtor reasonable notification of the time and place of a public sale or the time after which a private sale will occur. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes In re: Cannon Boat Yard, Inc. easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Secured Transactions (Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code), the case should be compared with related authorities on Noncomplying disposition of collateral / secured party's liability; if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.

Plain-English Explanation

Plainly, In re: Cannon Boat Yard, Inc. is a case to use when a Secured Transactions (Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code) answer needs an authority on Noncomplying disposition of collateral / secured party's liability. Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to In re: Cannon Boat Yard, Inc. (143 B.R. 270) strengthens a Secured Transactions (Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code) answer because the case reflects the principle that A secured party must act in a commercially reasonable manner when disposing of collateral after default, including giving the debtor reasonable notification of the time and place of a public sale or the time after which a private sale will occur. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether the secured party is liable for damages for not complying with the reasonable notification requirement of § 9-611. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Underlying Concepts

  • secured-transactions-article-9-of-the-uniform-commercial-code
  • Secured Transactions (Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code)
  • Noncomplying disposition of collateral / secured party's liability
  • case authority
  • exam application

Key Passages

  • Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.

Significance

In re: Cannon Boat Yard, Inc. is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for Noncomplying disposition of collateral / secured party's liability in Secured Transactions (Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code). The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

In an exam, introduce In re: Cannon Boat Yard, Inc. with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what In re: Cannon Boat Yard, Inc. decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Noncomplying disposition of collateral / secured party's liability, then move quickly to analysis.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Problem Question Use

Use In re: Cannon Boat Yard, Inc. in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with After default, secured party sold repossessed collateral at a private sale without giving the debtor reasonable notice of the time and place of sale., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.

Common Pitfalls

  • Name-dropping the case without applying the facts
  • Ignoring jurisdiction or procedural posture
  • Quoting without checking the linked source

Sources