Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Brantley v. Union Bank & Trust Co.

Brantley v. Union Bank & Tr. Co., 498 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1974)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1974-08-05
Topic: general

PER CURIAM: The appellants in this ease seek to challenge the constitutionality of §§ 9-503, 9-504, Title 7A of the Alabama Code (§§ 9-503, 9-504 of the Uniform Commercial Code) on due process grounds.1 These statutes permit limited peaceful self-help repossession without prior notice or hearing by a private par*366ty acting under authority of a private agreement. Our decision in this case is squarely controlled by our recent decision in James v. Pinnix, 495 F.2d 206, p. 207, n. 5a [1974] in which we found such statutes to be free from Federal due process scrutiny for lack of requisite state action. The judgments of the district court dismissing the appellants’ complaints were correct. Affirmed. .

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Brantley v. Union Bank & Trust Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status: pending
Cited by: 16 opinions

BRANTLEY v. UNION BANK TRUST COMPANY,498 F.2d 365(5th Cir. 1974)

JERRY D. BRANTLEY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. UNION BANK TRUST

COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

GRANT BAKER, CLINTON GRADY AND ESSIE LEEFELTON, ETC., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

v. R. FRANK KEEBLE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND TOWN FINANCE CORPORATION,

DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Nos. 73-3625, 73-3631.

Summary Calendar.^fn*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

August 5, 1974.

John B. Crawley, Troy, Ala., Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Charles F. Abernathy, Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants in No. 73-3625.

John M. Milling, Jr., Charles P. Miller, Montgomery, Ala., for Union Bank Bldg.

A. Ted Bozeman, Wayne P. Turner, Montgomery, Ala., for Goodwin Langford Inv.

Cleveland Thornton, Tuskegee, Ala., Charles F. Abernathy, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants in No. 73-3631.

Frank M. Gleason, Rossville, Ga., Samford, Torbert, Denson Horsley, Opelika, Ala., for Town Finance.

Philip H. Butler, Montgomery, Ala., for Frank Keeble.

Hill, Hill, Stovall, Carter Franco, Montgomery, Ala., for amicus curiae.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[1] The appellants in this case seek to challenge the constitutionality of §§ 9-503, 9-504, Title 7A of the Alabama Code (§§ 9-503, 9-504 of the Uniform Commercial Code) on due process grounds.¹These statutes permit limited peaceful self-help repossession without prior notice or hearing by a private partyPage 366acting under authority of a private agreement.

[2] Our decision in this case is squarely controlled by our recent decision in James v. Pinnix,495 F.2d 206, p. 207, n. 5a [1974] in which we found such statutes to be free from Federal due process scrutiny for lack of requisite state action. The judgments of the district court dismissing the appellants' complaints were correct.

[3] Affirmed.

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩
Section 9-503 and 9-504 read in pertinent part:
§9—504. Secured party's right todispossession after default.— Unless otherwise agreed a secured party has on default the right to take possession of the collateral. In taking possession a secured party may proceed without judicial process if this can be done without breach of the peace or may proceed by action.

§9—504. Secured party's right to dispose ofcollateral after default; effect of disposition.— (1) A secured party after default may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any or all of the collateral in its then condition or following any commercially reasonable preparation or processing.
↩