Sevosityanova v. Tempest Recovery Servs. Inc.

Appellant could not prevail on her abusive litigation because she neither provided appellee with the requisite advance notice nor presented any evidence that appellee pursued its claim against her with malice

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In this case arising from the repossession and sale of a car, Ekaterina Sevostiyanova appeals from an order of the State Court of Cobb County in favor of Tempest Recovery Services, Inc. Sevostiyanova contends that the trial court erred in ruling against her on her tort claims, in excluding certain evidence, and in failing to amend its judgment to include findings of fact and conclusions of law. For the following reasons, we affirm. “The court is the trier of fact in a bench trial, and its findings will be upheld on appeal if there is any evidence to support them. The plain legal error standard of review applies where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact.” Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted. Crowell v. Williams , 273 Ga. App. 676 1 615 SE2d 797 2005.

The record shows that, in March 2004, Sevostiyanova obtained a loan and purchased a 2001 Toyota Corolla. In July 2005, after she had fallen behind on her payments, Tempest repossessed the car and sold it. In January 2007, Tempest filed a complaint against Sevostiyanova, claiming that she owed the company $2,454 on the loan representing the deficiency between the outstanding principal loan amount and the sale price, plus interest, late fees and collection costs. According to Sevostiyanova, she never received formal notice of the sale,1 and it is undisputed that Tempest never perfected service of its complaint against Sevostiyanova. Sevostiyanova admitted, however, that she was notified about two months after the repossession that the company that had purchased her car loan was going to pursue a deficiency claim against her for approximately $2,445. In fact, when she filed for bankruptcy in December 2007, Sevostiyanova included the deficiency claim in a schedule of creditors holding unsecured, nonpriority claims against her. The bankruptcy court discharged Sevostiyanova’s debts in March 2008. Tempest received notice of the bankruptcy action, but, due to an alleged miscommunication, it did not dismiss its complaint against her after her debts were discharged.

Sevosityanova v. Tempest Recovery Servs. Inc.

Appellant could not prevail on her abusive litigation because she neither provided appellee with the requisite advance notice nor presented any evidence that appellee pursued its claim against her with malice

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report