¶ 5, 714 A.2d 829. Bay Bridge therefore has not joined this appeal. 2 . Under Article Nine, the plaintiff was entitled to sell the collateral securing the defendants’ debt in a manner and under terms that were commercially reasonable, to apply the proceeds of that sale to satisfy the defendants’ indebtedness, and to claim any remaining deficiency against the defendants. See 11 M.R.S.A. § 9 — 504(1)—(3) (1995). Article Nine also allowed the defendants to seek an order enjoining the sales, or to seek damages from the plaintiff, if the manner or terms of the sales were commercially unreasonable. See 11 M.R.S.A. § 9-507(1) (1995). The defendants did not avail themselves of these protections under Article Nine. 3 . See Butte County Bank v. Hobley, 109 Idaho 402, 707 P.2d 513, 514 (App.1985) (<HOLDING>); Ruidoso State Bank v. Garcia, 92 N.M. 288,
holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor  the irs  held a secured interest  a tax lien  in the property holding that article nine remedies remain available to secured party who becomes a judgment creditor holding a secured creditor has standing to appeal a ruling that impacted its financial interest in collateral recognizing that a secured creditor is not unjustly enriched by receiving collateral that has increased in value without expense to the second creditor holding that a secured judgment creditor may pursue simultaneous remedies to collect a debt as long as his pursuit does not constitute harassment