From our private database of 39,700+ case briefs...
Automotive Finance Corp. v. Smart Auto Center, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
334 F.3d 685, 51 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 297 (2003)
A used-car dealership, Smart Auto Center, Inc. (Smart Auto) (defendant), and the owner of the dealership, Carl Schwibinger (defendant), defaulted on loans with Automotive Finance Corporation (Automotive) (plaintiff). Each used car that Schwibinger purchased with the line of credit provided by Automotive was set up as a separate loan. Schwibinger was supposed to repay Automotive for each used car sold within 48 hours. Upon Schwibinger’s default, in December 1999, Automotive was able to make a new loan in exchange for cars that Schwibinger owned. The new loan was used to pay off some existing loans and to extend the due date on other loans. However, by the end of the month, Schwibinger had failed to make payments as agreed. Upon this second default, Automotive requested that Schwibinger relinquish the vehicles that had been used as collateral. Schwibinger refused. Automotive then sent an agent to repossess some vehicles. The agent had repossessed 16 vehicles before Schwibinger arrived, blocked the roadway, and objected to the removal of more vehicles. After an altercation, Schwibinger was arrested, and the agent took four additional vehicles and even tried to take vehicles that Schwibinger owned personally. Later, Schwibinger tried to settle with Automotive. Schwibinger had already notified Automotive of his intention to sell Smart Auto. Schwibinger proposed to redeem the repossessed vehicles by giving Automotive $265,000 from the sale of Smart Auto. However, Automotive and Schwibinger never reached an agreement. Nine of the vehicles were sold through auctions. Automotive sold the 11 other vehicles, which had unknown mileages, for $160,000 to a dealer able handle such vehicles. These vehicles would have received a low price if sold at auction because of their unknown mileages. The outstanding balance on Schwibinger’s loans was $117,000, and Automotive sued to collect the deficiency. Schwibinger argued that he was not in default and that Automotive did not mitigate its damages by accepting his offer and then sold the cars for too little money, which was not commercially reasonable. Further, Schwibinger filed a counterclaim, arguing that Automotive had wrongfully repossessed the four vehicles that were taken after he objected. The district court ruled that Schwibinger was in default. The court ruled that Automotive’s disposition of the collateral was commercially reasonable and that Automotive was entitled to around $165,000. The court ruled also that Schwibinger was entitled to $12,000 for wrongful repossession of the four vehicles repossessed after his objection. Schwibinger appealed, arguing that Automotive should have taken his offer to redeem the cars once Smart Auto sold.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Evans, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 645,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 645,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 39,700 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.