Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Moore v. Wells Fargo Construction

Court of Appeals of Indiana
903 N.E.2d 525 (2009)


Facts

McCawith Energy, Inc. (McCawith) was a mining corporation. One of the principals of McCawith was Richard Moore (defendant). The CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. (CIT), which later became Wells Fargo Construction (Wells Fargo) (plaintiff), entered into an agreement with McCawith to refinance an excavator, which was secured by the excavator itself. The principals of McCawith, including Moore, personally guaranteed the note and individually signed the security agreement. The personal guarantee included a waiver of any notification requirements for the disposition of the collateral and the requirement that any disposition be conducted in a commercially reasonable manner. McCawith defaulted on the note in 2003, and CIT repossessed the collateral. McCawith and all principals except for Moore filed for bankruptcy. CIT first sent notice of an attempted private sale of the collateral to McCawith and Moore in December 2003. In October 2005, CIT sent a second notice to McCawith and Moore, notifying them of a public sale of the collateral. The notice identified the excavator, the date and time of the auction, and listed a website where the auction would occur. The notice also listed the physical address of the company that operated the website. The excavator did not sell through the auction and was later sold at a private sale. The excavator was sold for less than the amount owed to CIT, and CIT sued Moore to collect on the deficiency. Wells Fargo was substituted for CIT, and it obtained a judgment from the trial court. Moore appealed to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Najam, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.