Metzger v. Americredit Financial Servs. Inc.

The defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's conversion claim based on its repossession of a vehicle, which the plaintiff bought without notice of the defendant's prior lien due to an error in the vehicle's title when it was transferred from out-of-state.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Theresa Metzger appeals from an order entered by the Superior Court of Clayton County granting partial summary judgment to Americredit Financial Services, Inc. on her claim for conversion based on the alleged wrongful repossession of her vehicle. Metzger contends that the superior court erred by failing to conclude that she took her vehicle free of Americredit’s security interest under the special priority rule for goods covered by a certificate of title set forth in OCGA § 11-9-337. We agree and reverse.1 The underlying facts are not in dispute. On or about October 1, 2002, Americredit repossessed a 1997 Ford Taurus from Metzger, who had purchased the vehicle from a used car dealership in March of 2002. Metzger did not realize that Americredit had a prior lien on the vehicle or that it had been repossessed. As a result, she reported the vehicle as stolen to the police.

Metzger later learned that Americredit had obtained a security interest in the vehicle in 1998, when the company financed James Strong’s purchase of the vehicle in the State of New York. The New York certificate of title issued to Strong reflected Americredit’s security interest in the vehicle.

Metzger v. Americredit Financial Servs. Inc.

The defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's conversion claim based on its repossession of a vehicle, which the plaintiff bought without notice of the defendant's prior lien due to an error in the vehicle's title when it was transferred from out-of-state.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report