Okla. Stat. tit. 12A § 1-9-609

Current through Laws 2024, c. 9.

Section 1-9-609 - Secured party's right to take possession after default

(a) After default, a secured party:

(1) may take possession of the collateral; and

(2) without removal, may render equipment unusable and dispose of collateral on a debtor's premises under Section 1-9-610 of this title.

(b) A secured party may proceed under subsection (a) of this section:

(1) pursuant to judicial process; or

(2) without judicial process, if it proceeds without breach of the peace.

(c) If so agreed, and in any event after default, a secured party may require the debtor to assemble the collateral and make it available to the secured party at a place to be designated by the secured party which is reasonably convenient to both parties.

Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 1-9-609

Added by Laws 2000 , SB 1519, c. 371, § 116, eff. 7/1/2001.

Oklahoma Code Comment

Revised section 9-609 carries forward the rule in former section 9-503 . As before, what constitutes a "breach of the peace" is not defined in the statute. Repossessing with the aid of a peace officer pretending to act under authority of law to validate the conduct may constitute official action and thus by involving intimidation may breach the peace. Waggoner v. Koon, 67 Okla. 25, 168 P. 217 (1917). But see Barrett v. Harwood, 189 F.3d 297 (2nd Cir. 1999) (no breach of the peace where the officer's actions amounted to no more than carrying out his duty to prevent violence in the event a breach of the peace occurred). The improper involvement of a peace officer may also involve state action and a violation of civil rights laws under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 . But the cases on this are very fact-specific.

There are numerous cases holding that self-help repossession is permitted, absent a breach of the peace. See e.g., Kroeger v. Ogsden, 429 P.2d 781 (Okla. 1967) (taking collateral from open hanger); Helfinstine v. Martin and Ford Motor Credit Co., 561 P.2d 951 (Okla. 1977) (towing car from debtor's drive); and Eustice v. Brazil, 567 P.2d 92 (Okla. 1977) (repossessing from repair shop after paying repairman's lien). But see Williamson v. Fowler Toyota, 956 P.2d 858 (Okla. 1988) (taking without permission from repair shop by breaking and entering is a violation).

Moreover, repossessing property in which there is no security interest, such as hunting equipment in a car's trunk, is a violation of law and the property must be returned. See Jones v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 565 P.2d 9 (Okla. 1997); Mangrum v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 577 P.2d 1304 (Okla. 1978).

As to damages for wrongful repossession, see revised section 9-625 and under former law, Mitchell v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 688 P.2d 42 (Okla. 1984), which remains good law.