From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Valentino v. Glendale Nissan, Inc.
Illinois Appellate Court
740 N.E. 2d 538 (2000)
Susanne Valentino (plaintiff) bought a 1996 Nissan Maxima from Glendale Nissan, Inc. (Glendale) in February 1998. Valentino signed a retail installment agreement with Glendale to purchase the car. The agreement was assigned to First Bank, aka First Bank/U.S. Bank (First Bank) (defendant). The agreement indicated that Glendale had a purchase-money security interest in the Maxima and that upon default, the holder of the contract had all Article 9 rights, including retaking the vehicle without judicial process. First Bank indicated that it perfected the lien by being named first lienholder on the Illinois certificate of title, and Valentino did not dispute this contention. Illinois state law required notation on a certificate of title for perfection of such a lien. Valentino, by counsel, wrote Glendale in late 1998, arguing that Glendale may have violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and that Valentino revoked acceptance of the vehicle and would not make further payments. Valentino made no further payments, and on March 10, 1999, First Bank repossessed the car. Valentino sued Glendale and First Bank, among other defendants, for many causes of action and sought relief against First Bank for conversion and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Valentino premised her claims on her own Article 2 possessory security interest in the car upon revocation of her prior acceptance of the vehicle and on 16 CFR § 433.2, which provided that the holder of the purchase agreement was subject to all claims or defenses the debtor could assert against the original seller. First Bank argued that Valentino defaulted by failing to make payment and that its purchase-money security interest had priority over Valentino’s claim. First Bank filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it, and the trial court granted that motion. Valentino appealed, claiming that her Article 2 security interest had priority over First Bank’s interest.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Inglis, J.)
What to do next…
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 617,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 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.