ILNews

Dealership did not abide by contract terms, COA rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Citing the terms spelled out in the contract, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a car dealer that entrusted a buyer with mailing a title to the lender will have to pay the balance of the auto loan.

Cruisin’ Auto Sales contracted with Springleaf Financial Services of Indiana Inc. to finance a car purchased by Cruisin’s customer, Jennifer George. Springleaf specified in the contract that Cruisin’ was to list the financial company as the first and only lienholder on the title, then mail the document to Springleaf.

The car dealer listed Springleaf as the lienholder but gave the title to George under the assumption she would mail it to the lender after registering the vehicle with the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

On appeal, Cruisin’ argued it fulfilled its contractual duty by endorsing the check and naming Springleaf on the title as the lien holder. George failed to perfect Springleaf’s lien because she did not register the title with the BMV.

Moreover, Cruisin’ maintained Springleaf should have included language in the contract if it wanted the car dealer to register the title with the BMV.

The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in Cruisin’, Inc., d/b/a Cruisin’ Auto Sales v. Springleaf Financial Services of Indiana, Inc., f/k/a American General Financial Services, 39A01-1309-CC-423.

It held that when Cruisin’ endorsed and negotiated the check, it accepted the terms of the simple contract which included the auto dealer must mail the title to the “payor.”

“Here, Springleaf is the payor and both George and Cruisin’ are payees on the Check,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the court. “Thus Cruisin’ agreed when it endorsed and negotiated the Check that it would mail the title to Srpingleaf, and, pursuant to the Letter accompanying the Check, list Springleaf as the lienholder on the title. Cruisin’ did not mail the title to Springleaf – it handed the title to George, who did not file the title with the BMV and subsequently stopped paying on the Loan Agreement. This conduct by Cruisin’ was a breach of its contract under the Endorsement.”

The Court of Appeals did remand for the trial court to correct a scrivener’s error and enter a judgment for $2,659.02 or explain why $2,779.02 is the right amount. Also, the court remanded for the trial court to enter the judgment damage award against both Cruisin’ and George jointly and severally.


 
 

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT