Ford Motor Credit v. Ryan
Ohio Court of Appeals
939 N.E.2d 891, 189 Ohio App. 3d 560 (2010)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
James and Carolyn Ryan (defendants) purchased several cars from Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford) (plaintiff). The Ryans defaulted on all of their contracts for the cars. Ford hired Automobile Recovery Services of Cincinnati, Inc. (ARS) to repossess the cars in self-help repossessions. On May 9, 2005, ARS repossessed a Mercury Mountaineer Premier. The Premier contained the Ryans’ personal property, including money and clothes. James asked ARS to return the personal property, but ARS only returned the vehicle’s license plates. The Ryans eventually redeemed the Premier. On January 12, 2006, ARS repossessed the Premier again. When James discovered an ARS employee hooking the Premier to a tow truck, James attempted to unhook the vehicle. The ARS employee grabbed James’s hands and pushed him away from the car while screaming at him. James testified that he felt threatened by the employee. James pushed and screamed back, but he eventually relented. Between February 7 and 8, ARS repossessed three more cars without incident. Eventually, Ford brought a breach-of-contract lawsuit against the Ryans in Ohio court. The Ryans filed several counterclaims against Ford and ARS, including claims of conversion, trespass, assault, and breach of peace related to the repossessions. Ford and ARS moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to repossess the cars. The trial court granted summary judgment for Ford and ARS. The Ryans appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Klatt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
