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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT