## Facts

- Coastal Leasing Corporation (Coastal) leased cash-register equipment to T. Bar S Corporation (T-Bar) under a written 48‑month lease requiring monthly payments of $289.13.
- T-Bar’s officers, George Terrance Talbott and Sharon T. Talbott, personally guaranteed payment of all amounts due under the lease.
- The lease provided that, after default, Coastal could demand the remaining amounts due, take possession of the equipment, and sell it at a commercial sale, applying sale proceeds as a credit.
- T-Bar made 18 monthly payments and then defaulted in December 1993.
- In late February 1994, Coastal sent a certified letter stating the lease was in default and that Coastal was demanding full payment of the outstanding balance ($8,841.06) within one week, or it would seek the balance plus interest, attorney’s fees, and possession of the equipment.
- Coastal later took possession of the equipment.
- On March 10, 1994, Coastal mailed a certified “Notice of Public Sale of Repossessed Leased Equipment” stating a public sale would occur on March 23, 1994.
- The notice was returned “unclaimed,” and the public sale occurred on March 25, 1994.
- No one appeared for T-Bar or the guarantors at the sale; with no other bidders, Coastal purchased the equipment for $2,000.
- Coastal later leased some of the same equipment to another company for a term and rate calculated to be $212.67 per month for 36 months.
- Coastal sued to recover the amount due under the lease minus the $2,000 sale proceeds, plus interest and attorney’s fees.
- The trial court entered summary judgment for Coastal against the Talbotts, awarding a deficiency (plus attorney’s fees). The Talbotts appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Coastal’s repossession and public sale of the equipment satisfied the Uniform Commercial Code requirements for reasonable notice and a commercially reasonable disposition, allowing a deficiency recovery.
2. Whether the lease’s post-default remedy (demanding the remaining balance and crediting sale proceeds) and Coastal’s later reletting of some equipment created a factual dispute about damages or mitigation that barred summary judgment.
3. Whether the guarantors forecast sufficient evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact on notice, commercial reasonableness, or damages.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment for Coastal.
- The court held that Coastal’s mailed notice of public sale was sufficient as “reasonable notification” even though it was returned “unclaimed,” and the mismatch between the noticed date and the actual sale date did not, on this record, create a triable issue.
- The court held the public sale was not shown to be commercially unreasonable merely because Coastal purchased the equipment at the public sale when there were no other bidders.
- The court rejected the guarantors’ reliance on Coastal’s later lease of some equipment as a basis to defeat summary judgment on damages, because it did not, by itself, show the earlier sale or deficiency calculation was improper.
- Because the guarantors did not produce competent evidence showing unreasonableness or improper damages, Coastal was entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the deficiency, interest, and attorney’s fees authorized by contract.

## Legal Principles

- Under UCC Article 9, a creditor disposing of collateral must provide “reasonable notification” of the time and place of a public sale; the statute does not require proof the debtor actually received or read the notice.
- Mailing notice by certified mail to the debtor’s address can constitute reasonable notification even if the letter is returned “unclaimed.”
- A secured creditor may purchase collateral at its own public sale; that fact alone does not make the sale commercially unreasonable.
- A party opposing summary judgment must forecast specific facts showing a genuine dispute; conclusory assertions about inadequate notice, low price, or later use of the collateral are not enough without supporting evidence.
- When a commercially reasonable disposition is shown and the opponent produces no contrary evidence, the creditor may recover a deficiency equal to the amount owed minus the disposition proceeds, along with contractual interest and reasonable attorney’s fees where permitted.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment for Coastal because the guarantors failed to present evidence creating a genuine factual dispute that Coastal’s notice or public sale was unreasonable or that Coastal’s deficiency calculation was legally improper; therefore, Coastal could recover the unpaid balance as reduced by the $2,000 sale credit, plus contractual interest and attorney’s fees.


Coastal Leasing Corp. v. T. Bar S Corp., 496 S.E. 2d 795 (1998)