Creditors Bureau v. De La Torre

California Court of Appeal Apr 6, 1971 No. Civ. 1443Published

Before: Stone

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Civil Code section 2983.2 does not require notice of the time and place of a vehicle sale, and the reassignment of a conditional sale contract from a holder to a seller upon payment of a guarantee does not constitute a sale under the statute.

Issues

Whether the reassignment of a conditional sale contract from a holder to a seller upon payment of a guarantee constitutes a sale under Civil Code section 2983.2.
Whether Civil Code section 2983.2 requires notice of the time and place of a vehicle sale.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that reassignment of the contract to the seller did not constitute a sale in the sense the term is used in Civil Code section 2983.2.”

“But the section does not require notice of time and place of sale; it requires notice of intent to sell if the repossessed motor vehicle is not redeemed.”

“As we read Civil Code section 2983.2, the notice served upon appellant included everything required by the statute.”

[560]

Opinion

STONE, P. J.

The case is before this court pursuant to an order granting transfer following certification by the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of Tulare County that such transfer appears necessary to settle a novel question of law involving an interpretation of Civil Code section 2983.2 (Automobile Sales Finance Act). The facts are not in dispute, and may be summarized as follows:

Appellant-buyer purchased a Rambler station wagon May 1, 1968, from seller, Visalia Dodge, Inc., under the terms of a conditional sale contract, for $799. The seller assigned the conditional sale contract, with recourse, to Security First National Bank (now Security Pacific National Bank), referred to herein as “holder.” The vehicle was registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles, showing the bank as legal owner.

By September 3, 1968, buyer was in default in his payments to the holder, and voluntarily relinquished possession of the automobile to it. The holder treated the relinquishment as a repossession, and, by letter dated September 3, 1968, notified buyer that it had repossessed the automobile and that buyer could redeem it by paying to the bank $728.82, less certain rebate credits. It is conceded that the notice complied in all respects with Civil Code section 2983.2, in that it specified a 10-day period during which buyer could redeem, specified the amount necessary to redeem, to whom payment should be made and where. The notice also specified that if the vehicle was not redeemed, it would be sold pursuant to the terms of the conditional sale contract.

Buyer did not redeem, and on September 30 seller paid the holder $589.44 pursuant to its guarantee. The holder reassigned the conditional sale contract to seller-dealer on October 1. Without giving additional notice to the buyer, the car was sold at private sale by the dealer, on bid, for $199. The proceeds from this sale are the basis for the deficiency judgment from which buyer appeals.

The case hinges upon an interpretation of Civil Code section 2983.2, which is part of the Automobile Sales Finance Act, chapter 2b of title 14 of the Civil Code. This section 2983.2

Creditors Bureau v. De La Torre

AI Brief

STONE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief