Bare v. JPMorgan Chase CA3
Filed 11/15/13 Bare v. JPMorgan Chase CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ----
JENNIFER BARE, C068709
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. NCI16175)
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant and Respondent.
Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase), repossessed a 2003 Chevrolet Silverado that plaintiff Jennifer Bare purchased with Chase financing. Bare brought a claim for breach of oral and written contract and fraud against Chase. The trial court sustained Chase’s demurrer to Bare’s second amended complaint without leave to amend. Bare, proceeding in pro. per., presents a barrage of challenges to the court’s decision. We shall affirm the judgment.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Bare purchased a 2003 Chevrolet Silverado from a dealership in September 2008. Chase provided the financing for the purchase. The transaction was governed by a “Retail Installment Sale Contract” (contract). The contract provided for a sales price of $17,178.86, $12, 553.86 of which was to be financed by a payment of $625.00 due on August 9, 2008, with 59 additional payments of $345.96 due monthly thereafter. The contract bears Bare’s signature. The contract states Chase possesses a security interest in the Chevrolet, noting the vehicle “secures payment of all you owe on this contract” and “also secures your other agreements in this contract as the law allows.” In addition, the contract includes a section on late payment and spells out the consequences for a late or missed payment. These include late charges, an acceleration clause, and payment of collection costs. The contract also states that if a payment is late or missed, “We may take the vehicle from you. If you default, we may take (repossess) the vehicle from you if we do so peacefully and the law allows it . . . .” The contract defines “default” to include a late payment. The borrower may recover the repossessed vehicle by paying all past-due payments and any late charges. Finally, the contract contains a provision regarding changes in the terms of the contract. The provision states: “How this contract can be changed. This contract contains the entire agreement between you and us relating to this contract. Any change to the contract must be in writing and both you and we must sign it. No oral changes are binding.” Chase repossessed Bare’s vehicle in June 2010. In July 2010 Bare filed a complaint against Chase for breach of contract stemming from Chase’s repossession of the Chevrolet. Bare did not attach a written contract to the complaint and did not specify the terms of the contract. Instead, Bare attached an “Affidavit of Jennifer Bare” detailing her claims. Chase filed a demurrer to the complaint.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)