Foley v. Capital One Bank, N.A.
Texas Court of Appeals
383 S.W.3d 644 (2012)
- Written by John Reeves, JD
Facts
Ellen Foley (defendant) bought a truck in 2006. To finance her purchase, Foley signed a motor-vehicle sales-installment contract with Capital One Bank, N.A. (Capital One) (plaintiff), with the truck as collateral. Foley eventually defaulted on the loan, so Capital One, as the secured creditor, repossessed the truck and sold it. But the truck sold for an amount lower than what Foley owed Capital One, so Capital One brought suit against Foley to recover the remaining balance as a deficiency judgment. Capital One pleaded that it had sold the truck in a commercially reasonable manner, but Foley, in her amended answer, alleged that this was not the case. During the bench trial, no evidence was presented on the issue of whether the truck’s sale was commercially reasonable, or even how the truck was sold in the first place. Foley argued that Capital One, as the creditor, had the burden to prove that the sale was commercially reasonable but had failed to do so. The trial court rejected this argument and awarded a deficiency judgment to Capital One totaling $18,011.37. Foley appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Busby, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
