Missouri State Credit Union v. Wilson

Danny and Carole Wilson (defendants) entered into a master credit agreement with Missouri State Credit Union (the credit union) (plaintiff). The agreement provided that any property pledged by the Wilsons for any loan obtained from the credit union would also secure future loans. Thereafter, the Wilsons obtained an auto loan from the credit union to purchase a pickup truck and gave the credit union a security interest in the pickup truck. The Wilsons also opened a credit-card account with the credit union. The Wilsons defaulted on the auto loan and the credit-card account. Accordingly, the credit union sent the Wilsons two separate notices regarding their right to cure the respective defaults. The Wilsons were unable to make payments and surrendered the pickup truck. The credit union then sent the Wilsons another notice referencing the auto loan only. The second notice was defective because the notice stated that the Wilsons had 15 days to cure the default to prevent a sale of the pickup truck, but the credit union sold the pickup truck after 11 days. The sale proceeds did not satisfy the entire amount of the auto-loan debt. Consequently, the credit union sued the Wilsons for a deficiency judgment. The credit union simultaneously sued the Wilsons for the credit-card debt. The trial court found that the credit union was barred from recovering the deficiency for the auto loan considering the defective notice. However, the trial court found the Wilsons liable for the credit-card debt. The Wilsons appealed and argued that the loans were secured by the same collateral such that the defective notice also barred recovery of the credit-card debt.