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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  2. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  3. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  4. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  5. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

ADVERTISEMENT