Schultz v. First Edina Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 28 July 1987
• Docket Number: No. C3-87-534,C3-87-534
• Citation: 409 N.W.2d 281
• Parties: Scott SCHULTZ, Appellant, v. FIRST EDINA NATIONAL BANK, Respondent, Northland Collection Service, Inc., Respondent, Marvin Bloom, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 281

409 N.W.2d 281

Scott SCHULTZ, Appellant, v. FIRST EDINA NATIONAL BANK, Respondent Northland Collection Service, Inc., Respondent Marvin Bloom, et al., Respondents.

No. C3-87-534.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

July 28, 1987.

Syllabus by the Court

Trial court properly granted summary judgment.

Ronald R. Notermann, Minneapolis, for appellant.

James D. Knudsen, Lasley, Gaughan, Stich & Angell, P.A., Minneapolis, for respondent, First Edina National Bank.

Michael L. Martinez, Spicer, Watson & Carp, Minneapolis, for respondent, Northland Collection Service, Inc.

Karla R. Wahl, Minneapolis, for respondents, Marvin Bloom, et al.

Considered and decided by LESLIE, P.J., and SEDGWICK and LANSING, JJ., with oral argument waived.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LESLIE, Judge.

After appellant Scott Schultz was evicted from his mobile home park, and his mobile home was repossessed, he brought suit against three parties. Appellant sued respondent First Edina National Bank, claiming wrongful repossession, sale and conversion. He also sued respondents Marvin and Phillip Bloom, d/b/a Blaine International Village, for having wrongfully evicted appellant and wrongfully denying a potential purchaser of appellant's home residency in the mobile home park. Finally, appellant sued respondent Northland Collection Service, Inc. for falsely representing that a deficiency was left on appellant's mobile home debt. Appellant claimed no deficiency existed because the mobile home had in fact been wrongfully repossessed by respondent First Edina National Bank. Based on the pleadings and appellant's deposition, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all three respondents.

DECISION

The function of this court on review of a summary judgment is to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law. Betlach v. Wayzata Condominium, 281 N.W.2d 328, 330 (Minn.1979). We find the trial court properly granted summary judgment on appellant Scott Schultz's claims against all three respondents.

Schultz argues summary judgment should not have been granted on its claims against respondent First Edina National Bank. Schultz cites the lack of a waiver of the property exemption of article I, section 12 of the Minnesota Constitution and Minn.Stat. Sec. 550.37 (1984) as the basis for his claim. Schultz claims that his mobile home falls within the exemption at Minn.Stat. Sec. 550.37, subd. 12. Since this exemption was not waived in the signed security agreement, Schultz claims the Bank's repossession of the mobile home under the self-help provision of the Uniform Commercial Code, Minn.Stat. Sec. 336.9-503, amounted to wrongful repossession, sale and conversion.

Article I, section 12 of the Minnesota Constitution provides that "[a] reasonable amount of property shall be exempt from seizure or sale for the payment of any debt or liability." "The humane and enlightened purpose of [the] exemption is to protect a debtor and his family against absolute want by allowing them out of his property some reasonable means of support and education and the maintenance of the decencies and proprieties of life." Poznanovic v. Maki, 209 Minn. 379, 382, ...