Parham v. Peterson, Goldman & Villani

Carl S. Parham appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Peterson, Goldman & Villani “PGV” in their suit seeking recovery on a promissory note signed by Parham. We reverse. Parham originally executed the note on or about August 16, 2002 in favor of The CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. “CIT” in connection with Parham’s purchase of equipment. By April 2003, Parham had become delinquent on the note, and CIT sent him a “Notice of Default —Demand for Payment and Intention to Accelerate.” When no payment was forthcoming, CIT sent Parham a letter on June 10, 2003 once again demanding payment in full, and indicating that CIT intended to “take the necessary steps to protect its interest in the equipment.” The letter enclosed a voluntary release form and asked that Parham sign the release to help reduce “legal and repossession expenses” that would otherwise be charged to Parham’s account with CIT. Parham signed the form on or about June 11, 2003. In doing so, Parham acknowledged that he was in default and he voluntarily surrendered possession of the equipment to CIT. On or about August 27 and 28, 2003, CIT sent Parham two notices, each entitled “Notification of Disposition of Collateral,” indicating that CIT intended to sell the equipment “privately” on September 11 and 12, 2003, and that it intended to pursue a deficiency claim against Parham.

CIT assigned its interest in Parham’s note to PGV on August 31, 2006, and PGV initiated this action on March 29, 2007 to recover the deficiency. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court granted summary judgment to PGV.1