Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Russell
Minnesota Court of Appeals
519 N.W.2d 460 (1994)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Monticello Ford and Mercury, Inc. (Monticello Ford) placed an advertisement in a newspaper for a 1988 Ford Escort for $7,826, with monthly payments of $159.29 based on a 60-month loan at 11 percent interest. Dawn Russell (defendant) wanted to purchase a Ford Escort, but was unable to obtain financing at 11 percent interest. Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford Credit) (plaintiff) offered to provide financing at 13.75 percent, with 60 monthly payments of $192.63, and Russell signed a contract under those terms. David Russell (defendant), Dawn’s father, co-signed the contract. Monticello Ford assigned its rights under the contract to Ford Credit. Russell defaulted on payments, and Ford Credit repossessed the vehicle and resold it for $2,200. Ford Credit brought an action against the Russells for a deficiency judgment. The Russells counterclaimed against Ford Credit and brought a third-party complaint against Monticello Ford, alleging breach of contract and false representation. The district court granted summary judgment on Ford Credit’s deficiency claim and granted Monticello Ford’s motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint. The Russells appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Huspeni, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 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.