James v. Ford Motor Credit Company
United States District Court of Minnesota
842 F. Supp. 1202, 24 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 363 (1994)
- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford) (defendant) spoke to Stephanie James (plaintiff) regarding a delinquency on her account and let her know that her car would be repossessed if she did not make a payment. James objected to the repossession and told Ford it could not repossess her vehicle. However, on June 29, 1992, Ford sent repossessor Robert Klave (defendant) to repossess James’s car. Ford took the car from a parking lot and notified Ford when the repossession was complete. Ford instructed Klave to take the car to an auction site. About an hour later, while Klave was driving the car, James spotted him. James got into the car and struggled with Klave, who pulled over into a parking lot. James and Klave struggled both inside and outside of the vehicle. James managed to regain control of the car from Klave and drove away. Klave then alerted the police to the altercation and reported the car stolen. Police spotted the car being driven on July 8. When police pulled the vehicle over, officers found that James was a passenger and arrested her. The vehicle was repossessed again by Klave on July 8. James filed suit, alleging that the date her car was repossessed was July 8. Although Klave’s company did have three documents that listed July 8 as the date of repossession, Ford argued that James’s car was repossessed on June 29, when the vehicle was in Klave’s possession for an hour.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Doty, 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.
