Chittenden Trust Co. v. Maryanski (1980)
Citation: 138 Vt. 240, 415 A.2d 206 · Court: Supreme Court of Vermont · Decided: April 8, 1980.
Source note (2026-10-18):
- Links on this page to
https://static.case.law/vt/138/cases/0240-01.json,https://static.case.law/vt/177/cases/0563-01.jsonare an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.
Facts
The bank obtained a deficiency judgment after disposing of collateral including restaurant assets. Its witness could not identify the sequence, sellers, buyers, individual proceeds or credits, or adequately establish sale notice. The debtor challenged commercial reasonableness. Full opinion, unofficial OpenJurist reproduction.
Holding
The bank had to establish reasonable notice and commercially reasonable disposition as prerequisites to the deficiency. Its proof failed; the court reversed and entered judgment for the debtor. Opinion, 138 Vt. at 243–247.
Reasoning
The selling creditor controls the transaction evidence and must substantiate its efforts to obtain value. A potentially better price alone is insufficient to prove unreasonableness, but the record here could not support adequate findings. Opinion.
Practical impact
Keep notice, marketing, valuation and accounting records when buying or disposing of business collateral. This deficiency case does not decide that the collateral buyer’s title was void. Opinion.
Good-law status
Current precedential status: cited, not overruled; remedy superseded for post-2001 nonconsumer transactions. The opinion applied former § 9-504. In Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Welch, 2004 VT 94, 177 Vt. 563, the Supreme Court applied Maryanski’s absolute-bar rule to facts that arose before revised Article 9 took effect on July 1, 2001, holding that the revised remedy provision does not apply retroactively under 1 V.S.A. § 214(b). New England Phoenix Co. v. Grand Isle Veterinary Hospital, Inc., 2022 VT 10, still cites Maryanski for the secured creditor’s burden to show a commercially reasonable disposition. For nonconsumer transactions governed by revised Article 9, current § 9-626(a) supplies a rebuttable-presumption deficiency rule; § 9-626(b) leaves consumer rules to the courts. Do not present the 1980 automatic bar as the current rule for every sale. A CourtListener citing-reference search (26 results) was reviewed on 2026-10-18; no comprehensive commercial citator certification is claimed. Welch (CAP text); 2022 VT 10 (Vermont Judiciary); current § 9-626.
Applies in →
vermont · equipment-and-machinery
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify current statutes and later treatment before relying on this historical decision.