# North Carolina National Bank v. Burnette

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · October 3, 1978 · 38 N.C. App. 120

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9585733

## Case

- **Full name:** NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL BANK v. TED R. BURNETTE and Wife, IRMA M. BURNETTE
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** October 3, 1978
- **Citations:** 38 N.C. App. 120; 247 S.E.2d 648; 25 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 374; 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2116
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brock
- **Judges:** Martin, Mitchell, Brock
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by North Carolina National Bank v. Burnette, 297 N.C. 524 (1979).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9585733

## Opinion text

Chief Judge BROCK
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion in this case; however, I disapprove of the language of the opinion insofar as it intimates that a mere allegation by the debtor that the sale was not conducted in a commercially reasonable manner or an allegation by the debtor of an inadequate and unreasonably low price would justify submission of such issue to the jury. The majority opinion does not hold that such allegations require submission to the jury but the intimation appears strong. This Court recently held in Trust Co. v. Murphy, 36 N.C. App. 760 (appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 295 N.C. 557 , 248 S.E. 2d 734 [1978]) that *130 the allegations of a debtor of any inadequate and unreasonable price obtained for the collateral at public sale does not justify a hearing upon the question of commercial reasonableness if the creditor has shown that there was in fact a public sale following substantial compliance with the procedures provided in Part 6 of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (G.S. 25-9-601 through 25-9-607). Trust Co. v. Murphy further held that the provision of G.S. 25-9-601 which provides “any disposition of the collateral by public sale wherein the secured party has substantially complied with the procedures provided in this part [Part 6] shall conclusively be deemed to be commercially reasonable in all aspects” does not offend the due process clause of either the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of North Carolina.
The purpose of this concurrence is only to point out that in my opinion and in the opinion of this Court in Trust Co. v. Murphy when the creditor shows substantial compliance with Part 6 the question of commercial reasonableness does not arise.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9585733. Public record. Not legal advice.