Williams v. Ford Motor Credit Company
case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
674 F.2d 717
CASE SYNOPSIS: (P) appealed a
judgment from the United States District Court, (Arkansas), that granted defendant judgment notwithstanding the verdict
in plaintiff's action, under an Arkansas Statute, to recover
damages for conversion that arisen from the alleged wrongful repossession
of an automobile that belonged to the (P).
FACTS:
Plaintiff and her husband bought an automobile that was subject to a security agreement assigned to defendant.
After the (P) and her husband were divorced, the (P) was granted the title in the vehicle, but her husband was required to make payments for a certain period.
When (P's) husband defaulted on payments, he signed a voluntary repossession authorization for (D). Plaintiff was informed of the delinquency.
Afterwards, the respondent caused (P's) automobile to be repossessed.
The (P) testified that the repossessing party neither threatened him nor did they cause the (P) to fear any physical harm.
FACTS:
Plaintiff and her husband bought an automobile that was subject to a security agreement assigned to defendant.
After the (P) and her husband were divorced, the (P) was granted the title in the vehicle, but her husband was required to make payments for a certain period.
When (P's) husband defaulted on payments, he signed a voluntary repossession authorization for (D). Plaintiff was informed of the delinquency.
Afterwards, the respondent caused (P's) automobile to be repossessed.
The (P) testified that the repossessing party neither threatened him nor did they cause the (P) to fear any physical harm.
ANALYSIS:
In plaintiff's action for wrongful
repossession under an Arkansas statute, a jury found for
plaintiff.
On defendant's motion, it was granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
On appeal, the court affirmed the holding that stated the repossession was accomplished without any incident which may have provoked violence, it was a legal repossession under Arkansas law and that the evidence did not support the jury's verdict.
CONCLUSION:
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict was affirmed.
The (D's) repossession of (P's) vehicle was accomplished without any incident which may have tended to provoke violence.
The taking was a legal repossession under Arkansas laws.
The evidence did not support the verdict of the jury in favor of the (P).
On defendant's motion, it was granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
On appeal, the court affirmed the holding that stated the repossession was accomplished without any incident which may have provoked violence, it was a legal repossession under Arkansas law and that the evidence did not support the jury's verdict.
CONCLUSION:
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict was affirmed.
The (D's) repossession of (P's) vehicle was accomplished without any incident which may have tended to provoke violence.
The taking was a legal repossession under Arkansas laws.
The evidence did not support the verdict of the jury in favor of the (P).
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment