Shanks v. Greenbriar Dodge, Inc., 77-2282
| Decision Date | 28 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-2282,77-2282 |
| Citation | 577 F.2d 296 |
| Parties | James SHANKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENBRIAR DODGE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Joseph H. King Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.
Harry A. Osborne, Leonard N. Steinberg, Forest Park, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before WISDOM, GOLDBERG, and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.
This truth-in-lending case presents facts virtually identical to those in Edmondson v. Allen-Russell Ford, Inc., 577 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1978), decided today, and is controlled by our disposition of that case. 1 Here the district court, adopting the recommendation of the special master, found that the assignment of unearned insurance premiums did not constitute a security interest required to be disclosed under the Truth-In-Lending Act and Regulation Z. We have examined the contract in issue and perceive no significant difference between paragraph 6 of Greenbriar Dodge's combined disclosure statement and retail installment contract 2 and the comparable provision examined in the Edmondson case. We conclude that this provision creates a security interest in refunded insurance premiums.
Paragraph 13 on the face of the Greenbriar Dodge disclosure statement discloses a security interest in a new 1975 Dodge Coronet. 3 This disclosure, which unlike the Edmondson language does not refer even to proceeds, is patently inadequate as "a clear identification of the property (refunded insurance premiums) to which the security interest (in those premiums) relates." 12 C.F.R. § 226.8(b)(5).
The decision of the district court must be reversed. We remand for consideration of statutory damages and reasonable attorney's fees.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
1 We have considered appellee's argument that plaintiff "is estopped to raise" the § 226.8(b)(5) issue and find it without merit.
2 Paragraph 6, found on the reverse side of the document, provides in full:
Buyer agrees to keep the property insured at Buyer's expense against substantial risk of damage, destruction, or loss for so long as any amount remains unpaid on this contract, with loss payable to the Seller as its interest may appear, and that Buyer will deliver all such insurance policies upon receipt to the holder of this contract. Buyer shall not be relieved of the obligation to procure and maintain vehicle insurance due to the inclusion of same in the contract, but such inclusion only authorizes Seller to attempt to obtain such insurance on Buyer's behalf through an authorized insurance agent. If Seller fails to procure such insurance the amount so included in the Total of Payments payable hereunder shall be credited to the last maturing instalments hereunder in inverse order of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valencia v. Anderson Bros. Ford
...Ford, Inc., 577 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951, 99 S.Ct. 2180, 60 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1979); Shanks v. Greenbriar Dodge, Inc., 577 F.2d 296 (5th Cir. 1978); Gennuso v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co., 566 F.2d 437 (3d Cir. 1977). 5 Edmondson is particularly damaging to defendant......
-
First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. of South Carolina v. Owings
...Bank & Trust Co., 566 F.2d 437 (3rd Cir.); Edmondson v. Allen-Russell Ford, Inc., 577 F.2d 291 (5th Cir.); and Shanks v. Greenbriar Dodge, Inc., 577 F.2d 296 (5th Cir.), the trial court found that the provisions were a security interest which should have been disclosed. Assuming arguendo th......
-
Luczak v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
...Allen-Russell Ford, 577 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951, 99 S.Ct. 2180, 60 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1979); Shanks v. Greenbriar Dodge, 577 F.2d 296 (5th Cir. 1978); Gennuso v. Commercial Bank & Trust, 566 F.2d 437 (3d Cir. 1977). Contra, Rounds v. Community National Bank, 454 F.Su......
-
Hernandez v. O'Neal Motors, Inc., 79-226 Civil
...of the TILA and is subject to disclosure under the provisions of §§ 226.8 and 226.6 of Regulation Z. See also, Shanks v. Greenbriar Dodge Inc., 577 F.2d 296 (5th Cir. 1978). Edmondson, supra, is not the only Court to have considered this question, however. In Rounds v. Community National Ba......