BANK OF SHERIDAN v DEVERS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 8 4 - 4 3 2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 BANK OF SHERIDAN, a Montana Banking Corp. , Plaintiff and Respcndent, -vsCLOYD W. DEVERS I Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of Beaverhead, The Honorable Frank Davis, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Datsopoulos, MacDonald Missoula, Montana & Lind; Edward A. Murphy, For Respondent : Kirwan & Barrett; Kelly M. Hogan, Bozeman, Montana Submitted on Briefs: June 6, 1985 Decided: July 30, 1985 Filed: M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Court. Cloyd W. of M o r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of Devers a p p e a l s t h e January 18, 1984, f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and t h e J u l y 2 4 , the findings 1984, o r d e r o f t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t i n g two d e f i c i e n c y judgments t o t h e Bank o f S h e r i d a n . We reverse the order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Appel l a n t Cloyd D e v e r s ( D e v e r s ) e x e c u t e d two p r o m i s s o r y n o t e s t o t h e Bank o f S h e r i d a n (Bank) on A p r i l 1 6 , 1 9 8 1 , one f o r $94,802.71 The n o t e s w e r e and t h e o t h e r f o r $21,580.03. s e c u r e d by D e v e r s ' farm machinery, e q u i p m e n t and l i v e s t o c k . Devers s u b s e q u e n t l y d e f a u l t e d on t h e n o t e s . petition f o r b a n k r u p t c y on August c o m p l a i n t August 25, 21, Devers f i l e d a 1981. Bank filed a 1 9 8 1 , demanding t h e $104,021.90 due and owing on t h e two n o t e s . Subsequentl-y, w i t h t h e Bankruptcy Court's repossessed permission, Bank the collateral. The l i v e s t o c k was i m m e d i a t e l y s o l d a t a p u b l i c a u c t i o n i n I d a h o Falls, Idaho. The farm m a c h i n e r y and e q u i p m e n t w e r e s o l d a t various s a l e s over a period of time. A w r i t t e n n o t i c e d a t e d November 8 , 1 9 8 2 , was s e n t by t h e a t t o r n e y f o r Bank t o D e v e r s s t a t i n g t h a t c e r t a i n l i s t e d f a r m m a c h i n e r y and e q u i p m e n t would b e s o l d a t a p r i v a t e a u c t i o n i n B a n k ' s l o b b y on November 1 9 , 1 9 8 2 , a t 10:OO a.m. The l o c a l n e w s p a p e r s w e r e u n a b l e t o p u b l i s h t h e n o t i c e p r i o r t o Nov~mb e r 1 9 , 1982. b e r 24, 1982. T h e r e f o r e , t h e s a l e d a t e was changed t o NovemA n o t i c e was p u b l i s h e d i n t h r e e l o c a l p a p e r s l i s t i n g t h e i t e m s f o r s a l e ( i n c l u d i n g two p i e c e s o f e q u i p m e n t not listed on Devers' notice) and stating the following: "Submit B i d s t o J i m S h i r e s , Bank o f S h e r i d a n , P. 0 . Box 587, S h e r i d a n , M t . 59749 "Please enclose a s e p a r a t e sealed envelope with y o u r b i d e n c l o s e d , showing ' e q u i p m e n t b i d 1 on t h e o u t s i d e o f envelope. B i d s w i l l b e opened November W e reserve the r i g h t t o 24, 1982, a t 10:OO a.m. r e f u s e any o r a l l b i d s . Contact J i m 842-5411 t o v i e w any o f t h e s e i t e m s . " Shires a t T h i s same n o t i c e was p o s t e d i n B a n k ' s l o b b y . D e v e r s c o n t e n d s h e r e c e i v e d no n o t i c e , w r i t t e n o r o r a l , o t h e r t h a n t h a t d a t e d November 8 , 1 9 8 2 , and t h a t h e was n e v e r notified of the change in the sale date. Robert Mr. T. S m i t h , P r e s i d e n t o f t h e Bank o f S h e r i d a n , t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l S h i r e s , t h e n V i c e P r e s i d e n t o f Bank, t h a t h e was c e r t a i n M r . had " i n f o r m e d " Devers o f t h e s a l e . Regarding h i s conversa- S h i r e s t e s t i f i e d a s follows: t i o n w i t h Devers, M r . "Q. I ' l l r e f e r you t o t h e a u c t i o n s a l e , p r i v a t e a u c t i o n s a l e o f November 2 4 t h , 1 9 8 2 , and t h e d a y s prior t o that. Did you h a v e o c c a s i o n a t a n y t i m e d u r i n g t h e month o f November t o d i s c u s s t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s a l e w i t h M r . Devers? "A. On one o c c a s i o n , M r . Devers c a l l e d m e c o n c e r n i n g t h e p i c k u p t h a t was b e i n g s o l d , y e s . "Q. Do you r e c a l l a p p r o x i m a t e l y when t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n took place? "A. Some t i m e i n b e t w e e n t a k i n g p o s s e s s i o n o f e q u i p m e n t and t h e s a l e . the "Q. Did h e q u e s t i o n you a t a n y t i m e c o n c e r n i n g t h e p a r t i c u l a r t i m e t h a t t h e s a l e was g o i n g t o t a k e place, o r anything of t h a t nature? "A. I b e l i e v e we discussed t h a t . W e talked about t h e s a l e and t h e f a c t t h a t w e w e r e t a k i n g b i d s on t h e equipment, yes." Approximately equipment was remaining e q u i p m e n t was treaty" sales sold one-half over at the the of Devers' November sold a t course 24, farm machinery 1982, sale. several different of several months. and The "private It is u n d i s p u t e d t h a t Devers was g i v e n no n o t i c e o f any s a l e s u b s e q u e n t t o November 2 4 , 1982. t h e c o l l a t e r a l was s o l d , Bank f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r by d e f a u l t on September 2 6 , 1983, r e q u e s t i n g d e f i - After judgment c i e n c y judgments o f the other, $36,995.21 attorney's fees, on o n e n o t e and $7,908.96 on c o l l e c t i o n e x p e n s e s and c o s t s . Following a bench t r i a l , ments o f $29,926.22 Bank was awarded d e f i c i e n c y judg- and $ 7 , 9 0 8 . 8 3 , a s w e l l a s $5,733.58 for the cost of the sales. I n h i s a p p e a l o f t h e o r d e r , Devers r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in holding Devers l i a b l e f o r d e f i c i e n c i e s on two p r o m i s s o r y n o t e s when: proximately one-half of the notes' ap- c o l l a t e r a l was s o l d a t a s a l e ; Devers' n o t i c e o f s a l e was e r r o n e o u s a s t o t h e d a t e and n a t u r e o f t h e s a l e ; and t h e o t h e r h a l f o f t h e c o l l a t e r a l was s o l d a t s a l e s w i t h no n o t i c e t o D e v e r s ? Assuming D e v e r s i s l i a b l e f o r t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s , 2. is t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e amount o f d e f i c i e n c y s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e ? Our resolution of issue one renders consideration of i s s u e two moot. The Uniform Commercial Code is codified in C h a p t e r s 1 t h r o u g h 9 o f t h e Montana Code A n n o t a t e d . t o 5 30-9-504(3), 30, Pursuant MCA, a s e c u r e d c r e d i t o r i s e n t i t l e d t o s e l l . collateral after a default, disposition Title s o long a s "every a s p e c t of t h e i n c l u d i n g t h e method, terms" a r e c o m m e r c i a l l y r e a s o n a b l e . manner, time, place, and T h i s i n c l u d e s a commer- c i a l l y reasonable n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e d e b t o r o f t h e pending sale. Montana s t a t u t e s p r o v i d e : "Unless collateral is perishable o r threatens t o d e c l i n e s p e e d i l y i n v a l u e o r i s o f a t y p e customari l y s o l d on a r e c o g n i z e d m a r k e t , r e a s o n a b l e n o t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e t i m e and p l a c e o f a n y p u b l i c s a l e o r r e a s o n a b l e n o t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e t i m e a f t e r which any p r i v a t e s a l e o r o t h e r intended d i s p o s i t i o n i s t o be made s h a l l be s e n t by t h e s e c u r e d p a r t y t o t h e debtor i f he has n o t signed a f t e r d e f a u l t a s t a t e ment r e n o u n c i n g o r m o d i f y i n g h i s r i g h t t o n o t i f i c a 5 3 0 - 9 - 5 0 4 ( 3 ) , MCA. t i o n of sale." Devers n e v e r renounced h i s r i g h t t o n o t i f i c a t i o n . " [ T l h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h e commercial r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e disposition of Farmers State Bank v. Mobile 342, 347, 593 P.2d Mont. i s on t h e s e c u r e d p a r t y . " collateral Homes 734, 737. Unlimited (1979), 181 The b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h e commercial r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e n o t i f i c a t i o n o f a d e b t o r o f a n impending s a l e i s t h e r e f o r e on t h e s e c u r e d p a r t y . Bank h a s n o t m e t t h i s burden. D e v e r s a l l e g e s t h a t t h e November 8 , 1 9 8 2 , n o t i c e o f s a l e was c o m m e r c i a l l y u n r e a s o n a b l e b e c a u s e i t c o n t a i n e d an i n c o r rect s a l e d a t e and stated that the s a l e would b e p r i v a t e , when i n f a c t t h e a c t u a l s a l e c o n d u c t e d was p u b l i c . n o t d e c i d e t h e n a t u r e o f t h e November 24, W e need 1982, s a l e a s t h e n o t i c e g i v e n D e v e r s was c o m m e r c i a l l y u n r e a s o n a b l e n o t i c e o f either a private o r a public sale. The o n l y w r i t t e n n o t i c e g i v e n Devers o f t h e i n i t i a l s a l e contained the wrong date. It also sealed b i d s w e r e t o be submitted. e d by Bank t o c o u n t e r D e v e r s ' failed to state that The o n l y e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t - t e s t i m o n y t h a t h e r e c e i v e d no n o t i c e , w r i t t e n o r o r a l , o f t h e c o r r e c t d a t e o f t h e s a l e was Shire's M. r testimony quoted previously. However, Shires never t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t o l d Devers t h e c o r r e c t d a t e o f t h e sale. Further, neither the sale notices i n t h e newspapers n o r t h e n o t i c e p o s t e d i n B a n k ' s l o b b y c o u l d be r e l i e d on by Bank t o p r o v i d e n o t i c e o f t h e c o r r e c t d a t e and method o f s a l e t o Devers. See L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l Bank o f Fremont v. (Ohio 1978), App. (N.C.App. 405 N.E.2d 1 9 7 6 ) , 223 S.E.2d Finally, Bank failed 317, and manner of disposition sales should Norton t o p r o v i d e Devers w i t h n o t i c e o f of the 1982. collateral c o m m e r c i a l l y r e a s o n a b l e and f a i r t o d e b t o r , subsequent v. 848. any s a l e h e l d s u b s e q u e n t t o November 24, the Hodges Greiner In order f o r to have been notice of these a l s o have been provided. As time passed, Devers might have found himself in a more stable p o s i t i o n and t h u s a b l e t o p u r c h a s e some o f h i s own e q u i p m e n t . On t h e b a s i s o f t h e p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n , w e h o l d t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l , c r e d i b l e evidence. "4. The s e c u r e d p r o p e r t y was s o l d by t h e P l a i n t i f f , the livestock a t a public auction a t a lives t o c k m a r k e t and t h e farm m a c h i n e r y and e q u i p m e n t and o t h e r p r o p e r t y a t a p r i v a t e s a l e c o n d u c t e d by the Plaintiff. The D e f e n d a n t had b o t h a c t u a l and c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e o f t h e v a r i o u s s a l e s and, i n f a c t , by h i s c o n d u c t , r a t i f i e d , a p p r o v e d and p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e s a l e procedure." Bank's able f a i l u r e t o g i v e t h e d e b t o r commercially reason- notice of the s a l e s of h i s c o l l a t e r a l p r e c l u d e s Bank from r e c o v e r i n g any d e f i c i e n c y judgment from Devers. ~ippert v . B l a c k f e e t T r i b e o f t h e B l a c k f e e t I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n (Mont. The d e c i s i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a w a r d i n g Bank two d e f i c i e n c y judgments a g a i n s t Devers i s r e v e r s e d . W e concur: r,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.