SunTrust Bank v. Venable

Mattie Venable (defendant) bought a minivan from Team Ford of Marietta (the dealership). The purchase agreement was titled “Simple Interest Conditional Sale Contract with Options for Balloon Payment and Vehicle Return.” The contract described Venable as the “Purchaser” and the dealership as the “Seller.” The contract also granted the dealership a security interest in the minivan. The contract only contained the minivan’s purchase price—it did not contain a separate fee for the security interest. Venable’s main reason for agreeing to the contract was to buy the minivan. After the contract was signed, the dealership assigned all rights under the contract—including the security interest in the minivan—to SunTrust Bank (plaintiff). Venable stopped making payments on the minivan in November 2007, at which point SunTrust repossessed the minivan and sold it for an amount lower than what Venable owed on the contract. In October 2012—almost five years after SunTrust had repossessed and sold the vehicle—SunTrust brought suit against Venable to recover the deficiency amount owed on the contract. Venable moved to dismiss, arguing that four-year statute of limitations in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) barred the action due to the contract being one for goods. SunTrust, in opposing, argued that the general six-year statute of limitations for written contracts not part of the UCC applied, due to the contract also being one for a security interest. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of SunTrust without addressing the statute-of-limitations issue. The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed, finding the four-year UCC statute of limitations applied and thus barred the action. SunTrust sought review in the Georgia Supreme Court.