PEOPLES BANK OF POLK COUNTY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT

v.

ARLIS L. ROBERTS AND NADINE ROBERTS, HIS WIFE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, CROSS-APPELLEES

11th Cir. | 1986-01-14

No. 85-3266

Before HILL and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.

779 F.2d 1544 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1986) Positive Treatment

Cited by 5 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

A secured party's failure to provide the debtor with reasonable notice of the sale of collateral bars the secured party from obtaining a deficiency judgment.

Facts & Procedural History

The Bank made loans to the Roberts secured by stock. After suing on the notes, the Bank sold the stock without providing the Roberts prior notice. The…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Secured Transactions Deficiency Judgment Erie Doctrine Diversity Jurisdiction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Secured Transactions cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

In 1982, the Peoples Bank of Polk County (“the Bank") made two loans to Arlis and Nadine Roberts (“the Roberts”) secured by 2,805 shares of stock in the Independent Bank of Florida. In June, 1983, after commencing suit on the notes, the Bank sold the stock for $20.00 per share. The parties stipulated that the Roberts were given no prior notice of the sale and did not waive their right to . receive such notice. Following a nonjury trial, the district court awarded the Bank a deficiency judgment in the amount of $92,217.19. The Roberts appeal, claiming the lack of notice barred a deficiency judgment as a matter of law.1

Under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), a federal court in a diversity action must apply the controlling substantive law of the state. In this case, the district court applied Florida law.2

The Roberts’ right to receive notice of the sale of collateral is governed by:Fla. Stat.Ann. § 679.504(3) (West 1985 Supp.) which requires that

Unless collateral is perishable or threatens to decline speedily in value or is of a type customarily sold on a recognized market, reasonable notification of the time and place of any public sale or reasonable notification of the time after which any private sale or other intended disposition is to be made shall be sent by the secured party to the debtor if he has not signed after default a conspicuous statement renouncing or modifying his right to notification of sale....

With one exception, every decision of the Florida district courts of appeal holds a creditor’s failure to give prior notice of a disposition of collateral bars the creditor’s right to a deficiency as a matter of law. See e.g., Hayes v. Ring Power Corp., 431 So. 2d 226 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983) (First District); Dependable Insurance Co. v. Landers, 421 So. 2d 175 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982) (Fifth District); Washington v. First National Bank of Miami, 332 So. 2d 644 (Dist.Ct.App.1976) (Third District); Hep worth v. Orlando Bank & Trust Co., 323 So. 2d 41 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975) (Fourth District). The Second District Court of Appeal, which would have reviewed this case had it been brought in state court, follows this nearly unanimous rule. Turk v. St. Petersburg Bank and Trust Co., 281 So. 2d 534 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1973); Siltzer v. North First Bank, 445 So. 2d 649 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984). Only one case, from the Third District Court of Appeals, follows a different rule. Ayares-Eisenberg Perrine Datsun, Inc. v. Sun Bank of Miami, 455 So. 2d 525 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984) (Third District) (held Fla.Stat. § 679.507(1) provides the appropriate remedy; debtor entitled to recover any loss caused by secured party’s failure to give notice). The Florida Supreme Court has not addressed the issue but we are “bound to adhere to decisions of the state’s intermediate appellate courts absent some persuasive indication that the state’s highest court would decide the issue otherwise.” Silverberg v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 710 F. 2d 678, 690 (11th Cir.1983). Although the intermediate court decisions are not unanimous, we accept the overwhelming majority rule as controlling state law for two reasons: First, there is no indication the Florida Supreme Court would decide the issue otherwise, and second, it is the law that would have been applied “in the specific courts available to plaintiff in the state system.” Farmer v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 539 F. 2d 562, 563 (5th Cir.1976).

Under Florida law, the Bank’s failure to give the Roberts notice of the sale of the stock barred a deficiency judgment against the Roberts. We therefore reverse the district court judgment and direct that judgment be entered in favor of the Roberts.

REVERSED.

. The parties also raise issues regarding commercial unreasonableness as a bar to a deficiency, the amount of the judgment and denial of attorney’s fees. The basis for our decision makes it unnecessary to address these issues.

. The parties do not raise any choice of law issue.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Raiza Bravo v. United States, 532 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2008)

…have followed the recent Second District opinion. Thus, the same law has been applied in federal court as would have been applied in the specific courts available to plaintiff in the state system.”); see also Peoples Bank of Polk County v. Roberts, 779 F. 2d 1544, 1546 (11th Cir.1986) (following a particular District Court of Appeal decision because “it is the law that would have been applied in the specific courts available to plaintiff in the state system” (internal quotation marks omitted)). This case w…
In re Gen. Coffee Corp. v. Gen. Coffee Corp., 828 F.2d 699 (11th Cir. 1987)

…urts absent some persuasive indication that the state’s highest court would decide the issue otherwise.” Silverberg v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & [*702] Curtis, Inc., 710 F. 2d 678, 690 (11th Cir.1983); see also Peoples Bank of Polk County v. Roberts, 779 F. 2d 1544, 1545 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam); King v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 686 F. 2d 894, 898 (11th Cir.1982). We believe, however, that Palmland Villas does not accurately reflect Florida law. With the exception of Palmland Villas Florida courts have cons…
Dietrich v. Key Bank, N.A., 693 F. Supp. 1112 (S.D. Fla. 1988)

…he question of whether she has any other defenses on the merits to a deficiency judgment. In Florida the failure of a secured party to give proper notice of a sale precludes an action for deficiency. See Peoples Bank of Polk County v. Roberts, 779 F.2d 1544 (11th Cir.1986); Commercial Credit Corp. v. Lane, 466 F.Supp. 1326 (D.C.Fla.1979); Barnett Bank of Tallahassee v. Campbell, 402 So.2d 12 (Fla.App.1981). The issue of proper notice is not before the Court on these motions. Cracker Boy…

Authorities Cited

Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938)
Silverberg v. Paine, 710 F.2d 678 (11th Cir. 1983)
Turk v. ST. Petersburg Bank & Tr. Co., 281 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
Hepworth v. The Orlando Bank & Tr. Co., 323 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
Gold v. The Honorable W.L. Bailey, 455 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
Dependable Ins. Co., Inc. v. Landers, 421 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
Bethina Washington v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 332 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
Vance J. Siltzer and Joann A. Siltzer v. N. First Bank, 445 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
Diamond v. State, 431 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
Lowell W. Farmer and Wilma Jean Farmer v. Travelers Indem. Co., 539 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1976)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw