Holloway v. Farmers & Merchants Bank

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: SMITH; QUILLIAN, P. J., and BIRDSONG
• Citation: Holloway v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 260 S.E.2d 380, 151 Ga.App. 424 (Ga. App. 1979)
• Decision Date: 20 September 1979
• Docket Number: No. 57731,57731
• Parties: , 27 UCC Rep.Serv. 1425 HOLLOWAY v. FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK et al.

Page 380

260 S.E.2d 380

151 Ga.App. 424, 27 UCC Rep.Serv. 1425

HOLLOWAY v. FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK et al.

No. 57731.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Submitted May 9, 1979.

Decided Sept. 20, 1979.

Maurice Byers, Dublin, for appellant.

H. Dale Thompson, B. H. Baldwin, Dublin, for appellees.

SMITH, Judge.

Because appellee bank failed to prove it possessed an enforceable security interest in the vehicle involved, we reverse the trial court's grant of appellee's motion for summary judgment.

Appellee bank brought this action against its debtor, used car dealer George Pippin, seeking to foreclose upon an alleged security interest Pippin had granted it in a certain automobile. Appellant intervened and presented evidence showing that she was in fact the owner of the vehicle and that she had allowed it to remain on Pippin's car lot upon their agreement that, if he could find a buyer for the car at a price approved by her, she would pay him a commission. It was subsequent to her leaving the car and the certificate of title at the lot that Pippin allegedly granted appellee a security interest in the vehicle. Appellee did not introduce a written security agreement but instead relied upon its officer's deposition indicating that it possessed the car's certificate of title, which Pippin had given to appellee pursuant to its financing his inventory. Furthermore, the certificate of title, purportedly executed in blank, was not produced below.

Assuming without deciding that appellee proved the other elements of a valid security interest and that, if proved, the security interest would have prevailed, ap...