Pattans Ventures, Inc. v. Williams
Decision Date | 01 December 2006 |
Docket Number | 2040648. |
Citation | 959 So.2d 115 |
Parties | PATTANS VENTURES, INC., d/b/a Pattan Title & Pawn v. Darryl WILLIAMS. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Bill Thomason and Clay J. Thomason of Thomason, Maples & Allsup, LLC, Bessemer, for appellee.
On Application for Rehearing
This court's opinion issued on June 2, 2006, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor.
Darryl Williams ("the pledgor") sued Pattans Ventures, Inc., doing business as Pattan Title & Pawn ("the pawnshop"), Nathaniel Ellis, Alabama Auto Adjusters, and several fictitiously named parties, alleging that his vehicle was wrongfully repossessed and sold and claiming as grounds for relief breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The trial court entered a judgment; however, based upon a postjudgment motion filed by the pawnshop, the trial court amended its judgment. The trial court's amended judgment determined that the pledgor's claims of conversion of his vehicle and breach of contract against the pawnshop were meritorious, entered a judgment against the pawnshop on the conversion and breach-of-contract claims, and assessed damages in the amount of $39,000.1 The trial court ruled in favor of Nathaniel Ellis on the pledgor's claims against him. The pledgor's claims against Alabama Auto Adjusters were dismissed without prejudice. The pledgor never substituted additional defendants for the fictitiously named parties in the complaint. Thus, the trial court's judgment is a final judgment. The pawnshop has timely appealed.
The trial court's judgment determined that the pledgor had purchased the vehicle in question, a 2001 BMW sport-utility vehicle, in April 2001, for the amount of $47,981.98. The Alabama Department of Revenue ("the department") issued the pledgor the certificate of title to the vehicle in May 2001.
On December 13, 2001, the pledgor pawned the title to the vehicle to the pawnshop for the amount of $700. At that time, the pledgor also executed a pawn ticket for that amount; however, as is customary for this type of transaction, the pledgor kept physical possession of the vehicle. In order to redeem the title to the vehicle, the pledgor was required to pay $875 within 30 days of the date of the issuance of the pawn ticket. The pawn ticket, signed by a representative of the pawnshop and by the pledgor, provides the following relevant contract terms:
(Emphasis added.)
Also on December 13, 2001, the pledgor executed a document styled "Bill of Sale of Motor Vehicle Pawned," which purported to evidence the sale of the vehicle to the pawnshop, with the sale to become effective if the pledgor failed to pay the $875 within 30 days.
Additionally, the pledgor executed a power of attorney, appointing Gabe Ellis, a representative of the pawnshop, as his attorney in fact for the purpose of applying for a new certificate of title and, among other things, placing a lien on the vehicle. The signature on the power-of-attorney document was not that of Gabe Ellis, however, but of James Bearden, an agent of the pawnshop. Other documents obtained from the department indicate that another power-of-attorney document was completed, apparently by the pawnshop, wherein Bearden was purportedly appointed to be the pledgor's attorney in fact. However, the trial court determined that the pledgor's purported signature on that document was an obvious forgery.
A January 25, 2002, application for a certificate of title to the vehicle filed with the department, which identified the pawnshop as a lienholder on the vehicle, was signed by Bearden, pursuant to the forged power-of-attorney document. In February 2002, the department issued a new certificate of title to the vehicle, indicating that the pawnshop was the first lienholder. That lien was released by Nathaniel Ellis, a representative of the pawnshop, on November 15, 2002, when the pawnshop took possession of the vehicle. The title document indicates that the vehicle was sold by the pawnshop on November 15, 2002, and that the title was subsequently reassigned in turn to three separate automobile dealers.
Nathaniel Ellis testified that the keys to the vehicle are with the vehicle and that he did not know the whereabouts of the vehicle. Nathaniel Ellis also testified that, at the time the pledgor pawned the title to the vehicle, he explained to the pledgor that the pawn ticket had to be redeemed within 30 days and that, if it was not redeemed within 30 days, the pledgor would have an additional 30 days to redeem it, but that, on the 61st day, title would pass to the pawnshop. Nathaniel Ellis claimed that the pledgor did not make or attempt to make any payments to the pawnshop.
The pledgor testified that he attempted to pay his pawn ticket 4 days before the 30-day pawn-transaction period expired. The pledgor stated that, despite the fact that he had enough cash to redeem his certificate of title, Nathaniel Ellis told him that he could not locate the certificate of title. According to the pledgor, Nathaniel Ellis added that, if the pledgor would pay the interest on the pawn ticket, the pawnshop would extend the time to pay the principal amount by another 30 days. The pledgor testified that he declined to pay only the interest and indicated that he was ready, willing, and able to pay the full amount of the pawn ticket upon Nathaniel Ellis's returning the certificate of title to him.
Two weeks later, the pledgor testified, he again attempted to tender full payment of the pawn ticket. The pledgor stated that Nathaniel Ellis told him again that he could not locate the certificate of title but that the pledgor could pay the interest on the pawn ticket to extend the transaction for 30 days. The pledgor stated that he again refused the alternative of paying only the interest and demanded return of the certificate of title in return for his full payment. The pledgor testified that he periodically spoke with Nathaniel Ellis by telephone between January 13, 2002, and up to February 13, 2002, but that the situation remained the same—Nathaniel Ellis claimed that he could not locate the certificate of title but offered to extend the transaction for 30 days if the pledgor would pay the interest due. The pledgor testified that he declined the offer each time. At the time the pawnshop took possession of the vehicle, about eight months after the pawn ticket had matured, the vehicle was valued at $39,000.
The trial court determined that the pawnshop had violated the Alabama Pawnshop Act, § 5-19A-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 ("the Act"), by selling the vehicle without waiting 30 days from the date it took physical possession of the vehicle. Specifically, the trial court stated:
The trial court concluded by stating that it was "reasonably satisfied of the truthfulness of [the pledgor's] claim for conversion of his motor vehicle and breach of contract," and it entered a "judgment for [the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Titlemax of Ala., Inc. v. Hambright (In re Hambright)
...are subject to characterization as pledged goods under the Alabama Pawnshop Act. See, e.g. , Pattans Ventures, Inc. v. Williams , 959 So. 2d 115, 121-22 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) (Judge Crawley authored the opinion; Judges Murdock and Bryan concurred in the result, without writing; Judge Thomps......
-
Titlemax of Ala., Inc. v. Hambright (In re Hambright)
...course, not all holdings of other courts are binding on this court. Importantly, if this court incorrectly characterizes statements made in Pattans or Morgan Thompson as dicta, the statements nevertheless lack the weight of binding precedent because a majority of the Court's judges did not ......
-
Zanaty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
...the note and mortgage. As Anchrum points out, the mere mentioning of this proposition by Pattans Ventures. Inc. v. Williams, 959 So. 2d 115, 117 n.2 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) in a footnote "is arguably only dicta." Anchrum, 2015 WL 2452775, at *5. Further Defendants have not persuaded the court......
-
Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Anchrum
...note and mortgage, the Anchrums cannot rely on a theory of unjust enrichment. They cite the case of Pattans Ventures, Inc., v. Williams, 959 So. 2d 115, 117 n. 2 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006), for the proposition that unjust enrichment cannot lie in the face of an express contract. Indeed, footnote......