Pickett v. Associates Discount Corp. of Wyo.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1967
• Docket Number: No. 3602,3602
• Parties: Tom R. PICKETT and Sallie Mae Pickett, Appellants (Defendants below), v. ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 445

435 P.2d 445

Tom R. PICKETT and Sallie Mae Pickett, Appellants (Defendants below), v. ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 3602.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Dec. 19, 1967.

Fred W. Layman, Casper, for appellants.

Donald E. Chapin, of Crowell & Chapin, Casper, for appellee.

Before HARNSBERGER, C. J., and GRAY, McINTYRE, and PARKER, JJ.

Mr. Justice GRAY delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal is the aftermath of a financial transaction between the parties involving the purchase by defendants of an automobile. The case was submitted to the court below on motions of both parties for summary judgment, and from an adverse judgment the defendants have appealed.

In essence the salient facts were stipulated and disclose that on March 17, 1964, the defendants entered into a security agreement with Tripeny Motors to finance the purchase of a new Comet car for their son which, inter alia, provided that payment of the amount due be made by 36 monthly installments in the sum of $126.75. On the same day Tripeny Motors, for value received, assigned the contract to plaintiff without recourse. Subsequently the son made monthly payments on the contract and by November 8, 1965, the unpaid balance had been reduced to the sum of $2,398.75. At about that time the son was negotiating with Tripeny Motors for the trade-in of the Comet to apply on the purchase of a 1965 Mercury car, and in an effort to ascertain the amount necessary to satisfy the unpaid balance of the within contract an employee of Tripeny Motors called an employee of the plaintiff. After making certain allowances for prepayment, the payoff was determined to be in the sum of $2,290.81, but plaintiff's employee through inadvertence and mistake quoted the payoff to Tripeny Motors as the sum of $1,290.81. Thereupon the trade-in was consummated and upon receipt of the sum of $1,290.81 from Tripeny Motors, plaintiff marked defendants' account 'Paid in Full' and released the security agreement of record. Apparently the mistake was not discovered by plaintiff until some thirty days thereafter. In the meantime the Comet had been sold by Tripeny Motors and the defendants entered into a new contract for the purchase of the Mercury by which they became obligated to pay some $1,300 for insurance, finance charges, and filing fees.

Plaintiff's claim is founded upon the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The defense tendered by the defendants was that they had no knowledge of the amount due on the within contract; that they did not know the payoff figure quoted to Tripeny Montors was incorrect; that they entered into the new contract for purchase of the Mercury in reliance upon that figure; that they would not have done so except for plaintiff's mistake; that they in no way contributed to the mistake; and that because of the foregoing there was no way to undo the mistake and return all of the parties to status quo.

In addition to the matters submitted by each of the parties in support of their respecitve motions for summary judgment, a pretrial conference was held and the report thereof recited that the facts were undisputed, including the fact that 'a clerk of the plaintiff by inadvertence reported a sum which was $1,000 less than the actual balance' due, or in other words $1,000 less than the payoff. The report also states that defendants' contentions were that they would not have purchased the Mercury with the attendant obligations had the 'true balance' on the Comet contract been stated, while plaintiff contended there were no circumstances shown to excuse the defendants.

The trial court called for briefs, which were submitted, and shortly thereafter issued a memorandum opinion advising of its findings and conclusions. In substance the court determined that plaintiff's claim of mistake stood admitted; that it was entitled to recover unless defendants' defense of estoppel was established; that the defense was not established in that the defendants had full knowledge of the amount of the debt and means of knowledge of the balance due on November 8, 1965; and while the circumstances presented were unfortuate, to do otherwise than hold for plaintiff 'would be an unjust enrichment of the Picketts (the defendants) and totally unjust to the creditor (the plaintiff).' In keeping therewith a judgment based upon a general finding for the plaintiff and against the defendants was entered for plaintiff.

In substance the defendants' attack upon the judgment is that plaintiff was not entitled to recover for the reasons (a) that defendants by reason of the mistake had changed their financial condition and could not be put back in status quo and (b) that the mistake was unilateral on the part of plaintiff and not mutual. As to the last contention it is doubtful that it has any bearing...