In re Hoskins
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri
266 B.R. 154, 45 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 1025 (2001)
- Written by Tom Squier, JD
Facts
In 1997, Charles and Sylvia Hoskins (defendants) signed a contract with Southtown Ford, Inc. (Ford) (plaintiff) to lease a Ford Windstar for 24 months. The contract said that at the end of the 24-month period, the Hoskinses could purchase the Windstar for $15,263.60 plus taxes and fees, slightly more than the estimated value. The contract allowed the Hoskinses to terminate the lease early, but even if they did so, they would be required to pay all the remaining amounts due. The contract said that in the event of default, Ford had the option to terminate the lease, repossess the Windstar, and then sell it. The Hoskinses stopped making payments in March 1999, and they voluntarily surrendered the Windstar to Ford in May 1999. In June 1999, Sylvia Hoskins signed a surrender form stating that she was giving the vehicle back to Ford and also that she understood Ford would sell the vehicle. Ford then sent a notice to Sylvia about the sale, after which Ford sold the Windstar. In accordance with the lease and the notice, the proceeds of the sale were applied to the Hoskinses’ outstanding balance, but the Hoskinses still owed $3,653.81. Ford sued to recover that amount. The Hoskinses argued that Ford could not recover because the contract was really a security instrument related to the sale of the Windstar, which meant that notice should have been given to Charles before the sale was completed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
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.
