General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 11 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-CA-0607,92-CA-0607 |
| Citation | 614 So.2d 302 |
| Parties | 20 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1014 GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION v. Eric T. JACKSON and Clifford J. Wyatt. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Rebecca J. King, Carter & Cates, New Orleans, for appellant.
Arthur S. Mann, III, Berrigan, Danielson, Litchfield, Olsen, Schonekas & Mann, New Orleans, for appellee.
Before SCHOTT, C.J. and BARRY and PLOTKIN, JJ.
This appeal arises from the default on a promissory note which the defendant, Eric Jackson, signed. The plaintiff, General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), seized and sold the vehicle which was the object of the promissory note and now seeks to collect the balance of the sum due by way of a deficiency judgment. The plaintiff was granted summary judgment for the amount of the deficiency. The defendant Eric Jackson appeals the granting of the summary judgment.
FACTS--
On January 31, 1989, Eric Jackson and Clifford Wyatt signed a promissory note in the sum of $26,121 in order to purchase a Nissan Maxima from Benson Nissan in New Orleans, Louisiana. The promissory note was assigned to GMAC prior to default. Payments on the note were made until October 1989, then ceased. GMAC accelerated the balance due and sought executory process. The amount sued for was $19,882.30.
Under executory process, the car was seized and sold for $12,600. GMAC then sought a deficiency judgment against both Jackson and Wyatt. Wyatt has since filed for and received protection in bankruptcy. Jackson filed an answer alleging affirmative defenses of vice of consent, lack of consideration and breach of contract. GMAC was granted summary judgment in the amount of $12,839.58. This amount represents the amount of the balance due on the promissory note as well as legal interest, costs of the sale and attorney's fees. We affirm.
VICES OF CONSENT AND LACK OF CONSIDERATION--
Jackson alleges that the promissory note is invalid due to a vice of consent. Jackson alleges that he never agreed to be the mortgagor on the promissory note although his signature appears on the "mortgagor" line. It was his intention, he argues, to merely co-sign the note. Thus, because the note represents him as the "mortgagor," it is invalid since he never gave his consent to be bound as such. Additionally, he argues that, because he neither owned nor operated the vehicle, he received no consideration for binding himself on the promissory note.
An accommodation party is one who signs the instrument in any capacity for the purpose of lending his name to another party to it. La.R.S. 10:3-415. A person who co-signs a note is an accommodation maker and as such is solidarily bound with the maker even though he receives no benefit. Dugas v. Modular Quarters, Inc., 561 So.2d 192 (La.App. 3d Cir.1990); Darby v. Doucet, 482 So.2d 986 (La.App. 3d Cir.1986); Brashears v. Williams, 294 So.2d 246 (La.App. 1st Cir.1974).
The fact that Jackson's name appears upon the "mortgagor" line is immaterial. Jackson admits that he intended to co-sign the note. Because he received no benefits from his signing the note, it is apparent that Jackson was merely lending his name to Wyatt in order to complete the transaction. Therefore, Jackson is an accommodation maker. As such he is liable in solido with the maker to the creditor. Additionally, as the jurisprudence makes clear, as an accommodation maker, it is unnecessary for Jackson to have received consideration for the lending of his signature.
BREACH OF CONTRACT--
Jackson also alleges that by having the vehicle appraised prior to sale, GMAC...
To continue reading
Request your trial