Horizon Savings v. Wootton, 1960
Decision Date | 08 May 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 1960,1960 |
Parties | , 18 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1322 HORIZON SAVINGS, Appellee, v. WOOTTON et al., Appellants. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Scott H. Schooler, Cleveland, for appellee.
Lawrence J. Courtney, Medina, for appellants.
Defendants-appellants, Faye and Arthur Wootton, appeal from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Horizon Savings ("Horizon"), in Horizon's action asserting a deficiency judgment against the Woottons. We reverse.
The Woottons received a loan from Horizon in order to purchase a 1987 Oldsmobile 98 Regency automobile. As a condition of the loan, the Woottons gave Horizon a security interest in the automobile until the loan was paid in full.
Horizon repossessed the automobile when the Woottons failed to make timely payments on the loan. On March 8, 1990, Horizon sent a certified letter to the Woottons informing them that the automobile would be "offered for sale on March 12, 1990." However, the Woottons did not receive the letter until March 16, 1990. The automobile was actually sold on March 30, 1990.
Horizon filed this action to obtain a judgment against the Woottons for the amount still owing on the loan after the sale of the automobile. The Woottons answered by admitting the loan and the security agreement, but denying the balance of the complaint.
The Woottons and Horizon each filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied the Woottons' motion finding that Horizon, as a financial institution, was under no obligation to comply with the Retail Installment Sales Act, R.C. 1317.01 et seq. In addition, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Horizon. The trial court found that the Woottons admitted that Horizon's security interest was valid and that the Woottons failed to set forth defenses concerning the loan and security interest. The Woottons now appeal.
The Woottons contend that Horizon failed to establish either that the Woottons were reasonably notified of the sale of the automobile or that the sale was performed in a commercially reasonable manner.
R.C. 1309.47 applies to the disposition of repossessed collateral. First Natl. Bank v. Turner (1981), 1 Ohio App.3d 152, 153, 1 OBR 463, 464, 439 N.E.2d 1259, 1261. R.C. 1309.47(C) provides in part:
(Emphasis added.)
Compliance with R.C. 1309.47(C), requiring the creditor to reasonably notify the debtor and to dispose of the collateral in a commercially reasonable manner, is a condition precedent to the recovery of a deficiency judgment. See Bank One, Cleveland, N.A. v. Hicks (Apr. 18, 1990), Medina App. No. 1811, unreported, 1990 WL 50025; Liberty Bank v. Greiner (1978), 62 Ohio App.2d 125, 132-133, 16 O.O.3d 291, 296-297, 405 N.E.2d 317, 323-324. The secured party has the burden of proof to show that reasonable notice was properly given. Greiner, supra, at 131, 16 O.O.3d at 295, 405 N.E.2d at 322-323. The burden is also upon the secured party to show that the disposition of the collateral was conducted in a commercially reasonable manner. Turner, supra, 1 Ohio App.3d at 155, 1 OBR at 466-467, 439 N.E.2d at 1263; Hicks, supra. The requirement of a commercially reasonable sale and reasonable notice are related but independent. Greiner, supra, at 133, 16 O.O.3d at 296-297, 405 N.E.2d at 323-324.
By their motion for summary judgment the Woottons raised the issues of reasonable notice and commercially reasonable disposition of the automobile. Unfortunately, the Woottons cited R.C. 1317.16 as the controlling statute rather than R.C. 1309.47 which in fact applies. They did, however, cite Huntington Natl. Bank v. Stockwell (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 30, 10 OBR 38, 460 N.E.2d 303, which refers to R.C. 1309.47(C). Horizon, rather than advising the court as to the proper statute which requires reasonable notice to the debtor and a commercially reasonable disposition, directed the court's attention only to the inapplicable statute.
Even if Woottons' motion for summary judgment was defective because of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Salata v. Vallas, 03 MA 157.
...there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Horizon Sav. v. Wootton (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 501, 504, 597 N.E.2d 1150. {¶ 48} In the present case, Salata moved for summary judgment on Vallas's counterclaim that alleged that Sala......
-
Stewart v. B.F. Goodrich Co.
...two of the syllabus; Beard v. Mayfield (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 173, 176, 596 N.E.2d 1056, 1058; Horizon Savings v. Wootton (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 501, 504, 597 N.E.2d 1150, 1152-1153. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio recently has held that a motion for summary judgment forces the nonmoving......
-
Weaver v. Steak N'Shake Operations, Inc., Case Number 1-05-91 (Ohio App. 5/22/2006)
...that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Horizon Savings v. Wootton (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 501. In ruling on a summary judgment motion, this Court is not permitted to weigh evidence or choose among reasonable inferences......
-
Natl. City Bank v. The Plechaty Cos.
...a commercially reasonable manner, so appellee could not collect a deficiency judgment against appellants. See Horizon Savings v. Wootton (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 501, 597 N.E.2d 1150; R.C. 1309.47(C); 1309.45(B). TPC asserts that a penalty of 1.6 million dollars and a price of $275,000 was un......