General Finance Corp. v. Hester, 53205
| Decision Date | 13 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 53205,53205,3 |
| Citation | 141 Ga.App. 28,232 S.E.2d 375 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 21 UCC Rep.Serv. 309 GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION v. R. E. HESTER |
Lewis N. Jones, John A. Clark, Atlanta, for appellant.
Holcomb & McDuff, Terry E. Willis, Marietta, for appellee.
On October 1, 1973, West Side Auto Sales, a used car dealership owned by Marvin Watson, called General Finance Corporation (GFC) to request an automobile credit application for Gloria Tamplin to purchase a 1972 Cadillac Coup de Ville. A credit check was run and GFC agreed to handle the financing of the purchase. On December 14 a check for the purchase amount was issued by GFC to Gloria Tamplin and West Side Auto Sales. The first and only payment by the debtor to GFC was made on January 25, 1974. Subsequently GFC applied for the title in the name of Gloria Tamplin and attempted to perfect its security interest in the automobile, but the motor vehicle application was returned along with the original title issued to West Side Auto Sales because the documents were improperly signed. The original certificate, issued December 13, 1973, showed West Side Auto Sales as the owner and showed no liens on the automobile. No title certificate in the name of Gloria Tamplin reflecting GFC's security interest in the automobile was ever issued by the Georgia Motor Vehicle Certificate Title Department.
On July 22, 1974, Roy E. Hester, who was in the used car business, was approached by Marvin Watson, representing himself as the owner of West Side Auto Sales, with an automobile he wanted to sell. Hester made an offer which was accepted by Watson. The title Watson had was a replacement certificate of title issued in the name of West Side Auto Sales on July 19, 1974. Hester wrote out a check to Watson, a bill of sale was signed and Watson signed the certificate of title in blank. Hester telephoned the Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Department on July 23 and was told that there were no outstanding liens against the motor vehicle in question. On July 26, GFC told Hester that it had a lien against the automobile and resubmitted to the Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Department its application for title along with a power of attorney from Watson. Its security interest was perfected as of July 29, 1974.
GFC initially filed a foreclosure action against Hester to regain possession of the automobile, but at the call of the case the issue was changed by agreement of the parties to recovery of value of the automobile. The trial court found in Hester's favor, GFC appealed and this court remanded with direction that the judgment be vacated,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Banks
...and protects bona fide purchasers. See May v. Macioce, 200 Ga.App. 542, 543-544(1), 409 S.E.2d 45 (1991); Gen. Fin. Corp. v. Hester, 141 Ga.App. 28, 232 S.E.2d 375 (1977). In my view, therefore, the Act is of the type contemplated by OCGA § 16-13-49(a)(7). Since the absolutely clear languag......
-
In re Farnham
...and proper in all respects, as indeed Harvester's application on February 1, 1985 was. Compare General Finance Corporation v. Hester, 141 Ga.App. 28, 232 S.E.2d 375 (Ga.Ct.App.1977) (when creditor failed to submit properly signed documents to Motor Vehicle Department, which returned the app......
-
Hairston v. Savannah River Plant Federal Credit Union, A94A2542
...(OCGA § 40-3-50 et seq.), and the only way to create a security interest in a vehicle is under this chapter. Gen. Fin. Corp. v. Hester, 141 Ga.App. 28, 29, 232 S.E.2d 375. Under OCGA § 40-3-51(1) the security interest in the vehicle is created by the owner. Thus, there is no legal support f......
-
May v. Macioce, A91A0150
...an automobile are subordinate to the rights of an innocent third party who acquires the automobile for value. General Fin. Corp. v. Hester, 141 Ga.App. 28, 232 S.E.2d 375 (1977). In the present record, there are material issues of fact as to whether Macioce was such an innocent third party.......