Jones v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
| Decision Date | 17 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 47858,47858 |
| Citation | 565 P.2d 9 |
| Parties | 21 UCC Rep.Serv. 914 James JONES, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation, and Hudiburg Chevrolet, Inc., a Domestic Corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Robert T. Keel, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
Robert E. Manchester, McClelland, Collins, Sheehan, Bailey, Bailey & Belt, Oklahoma City, for appellee, General Motors Acceptance Corp.
Edward H. Ferrish, Midwest City, for appellee, Hudiburg Chevrolet, Inc.
In this action for conversion, James Jones (appellant) sought damages against General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) and Hudiburg Chevrolet, Inc. (Hudiburg), for the wrongful repossession of appellant's automobile and the wrongful withholding of personal property which was in the repossessed automobile. The trial court sustained appellees' separate motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, Division No. 2, reversed the sustentions of the motions for summary judgment and remanded the cause for trial. Appellant seeks Certiorari.
Appellant purchased the automobile from Hudiburg and financed it by means of a promissory note and security agreement. Hudiburg subsequently assigned the note and security agreement to GMAC. Appellant defaulted on the note and GMAC sent one of its employees to repossess the automobile. The repossession was accomplished without a breach of the peace by removing the car from appellant's place of residence in his absence. Appellant returned to find a note from GMAC's employee stating the car had been repossessed and directing him to inquire at Hudiburg should he desire to secure its return. Appellant alleged in his petition and in certain affidavits filed in response to the subsequent motions of appellees for summary judgment that there were in the repossessed automobile items of personal property belonging to him, and that upon inquiry at Hudiburg he was told his personal property would not be returned to him unless he paid the entire balance due on the note secured by the car as collateral.
Suit was commenced by appellant to recover damages for the conversion of the car and the personal property taken with the car. In the trial court, appellees filed separate motions for summary judgment supported by affidavits. Appellant responded by filing counter-affidavits, which when considered with the pleadings and the affidavits of appellees constitute the source of the foregoing factual outline of the case. The trial court rendered summary judgment for appellees and appellant lodged this appeal.
The Court of Appeals reversed on the basis of a prior decision of the Court of Appeals ruling self-help repossession under 12A O.S.1971, § 9-503, unconstitutional. Helfinstine v. Martin, Okl.App., 47 OBJ 973 (1976). Since the promulgation of the unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case, the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Helfinstine, supra, has been vacated and the decision reversed by this Court. Helfinstine v. Martin and Ford Motor Credit Co., Okl. 561 P.2d 951 (1977). Given this Court's opinion in Helfinstine, supra, there is no need to further discuss the constitutionality of our self-help repossession statute. See § 9-503, supra.
The Court of Appeals, recognizing the "somewhat inchoate" standing of the Helfinstine decision then pending on petition for Writ of Certiorari in this Court, proceeded further in their discussion of this case to consider the propriety of the trial court's ruling as it related to appellant's contentions concerning the conversion of his personal property. The relative rights of creditor and debtor with respect to personal property coming into the creditor's possession as a result of a § 9-503 repossession of collateral was a topic this Court expressly declined to consider in Helfinstine, supra, because the issue had not been properly raised. That issue has been raised in this proceeding and as appellant states "The issue to be decided is whether appellees are liable in damages for withholding personal property belonging to appellant obtained when they repossessed his automobile after demand for the return of the personal property has been made."
The case is before the Court on the sustention of the separate motions of appellees for summary judgment. On appellate review, all inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in the record should be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Northrip v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Okl., 529 P.2d 489 (1974).
Essentially, the arguments of appellees are twofold. First, appellees contend they rightfully acquired...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Herring
...hold the personal property, it could do so only as long as it was necessary to secure possession of the trucks. Jones v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 565 P.2d 9 (Okl.1977); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Vincent, 183 Okl. 547, 83 P.2d 539 (1938); AND FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO. V. WATErs,......
-
Moses v. Hoebel
... ... federal courts, the use of the "private-attorney-general" device, it reaffirmed its commitment to, and sanction of, ... 15, App. 2; Centorp Corp. v. Gulf Production Corp., 183 Okl. 436, 83 P.2d 181, 185 ... Co., Okl., 525 P.2d 1357, 1359 (1974); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Carpenter, Okl., 576 P.2d 1166, 1168 ... ...
-
Larranaga v. MILE HIGH COLLECTION & RECOVERY BUR.
...within automobile at time of repossession, plaintiff would have stated claim for tort of conversion); Jones v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 565 P.2d 9, 11-12 (Okla.1977) (same). Although not exactly on point, this Court believes that Newman controls the outcome In Newman the defendant r......
-
Rose v. Sapulpa Rural Water Co.
...Honorable DWAIN D. BOX was appointed in his stead. 1 Rule 13, Rules for the District Courts of Oklahoma.2 Jones v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Okl., 565 P.2d 9 (1977).3 In a decision contemporary with Lutz, supra, California in Niehaus Bros. Co. v. Contra Costa Water Co., 159 Cal......