American General Financial Services, Inc. v. Woods-Witcher
Georgia Court of Appeals
669 S.E.2d 709 (2008)
- Written by Douglas Halasz, JD
Facts
Shirley Woods-Witcher (defendant) obtained a loan from American General Financial Services, Inc. (American General) (plaintiff) to buy a car and gave American General a security interest in the car. Woods-Witcher defaulted on the loan. Accordingly, American General repossessed the car. Thereafter, American General sent Woods-Witcher a notice of its intent to sell the car at a public auction no earlier than December 5, 2002. The notice indicated that Woods-Witcher could attend the sale and bring bidders if she wanted to. American General ultimately sold the vehicle on May 22, 2003, for $2,400 at a private dealer-only sale. American General applied the proceeds to Woods-Witcher’s indebtedness and sued Woods-Witcher to recover the approximately $20,000 deficiency. Woods-Witcher filed a counterclaim against American General seeking statutory damages and alleged that American General had provided insufficient notice of the sale. American General moved for summary judgment on its claim, which the trial court denied. Woods-Witcher moved for summary judgment on her counterclaim, which the trial court granted. American General appealed and argued that the trial court had erred in ruling that American General was not entitled to seek a deficiency judgment against Woods-Witcher.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Phipps, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
