ILNews

COA affirms judgment for bank in replevin action

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld summary judgment for a bank in its attempt to repossess a motorcycle, finding that while the purchasers of the motorcycle had an interest in it, their interest was not superior to the bank’s perfect security interest.

Jacob Magish bought a Harley Davidson motorcycle, using a $15,000 loan from Fifth Third Bank. He never completed the proper title work and in fact fraudulently obtained a “clean” title. He fell behind on his loan payments and sold the motorcycle through Craigslist to Kristine and Larry Dawson. He gave them the fraudulent title.

Fifth Third attempted to repossess the bike and filed a replevin case. The Dawsons, who still have the motorcycle, filed a complaint to have the bank’s lien declared unenforceable so they can have a clear title. Fifth Third filed a counterclaim for replevin. Both filed for summary judgment, which the trial court granted for the bank.

When Magish defaulted on his loan, the bank, as the secured party, had a right to take possession of the motorcycle, the COA ruled in Kristine A. and Larry G. Dawson v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 49A02-1107-PL-704. The judges rejected the Dawsons’ claim that their purchase and ownership of the motorcycle precludes the bank from being able to prove that the Dawsons wrongfully held possession of the motorcycle. Judge Carr Darden noted that the Dawsons didn’t verify with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles before purchasing the motorcycle that the title had no liens.

The judges also rejected the Dawsons’ argument that the trial court erred by denying their motion for summary judgment on their claim for equitable estoppel. The Dawsons cited no caselaw to support their arguments and failed to show that the bank’s acts or omissions were responsible for their loss by purchasing the motorcycle without knowledge of the lien to the extent that equity should be granted to them, Darden wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT