Williams v. Ford Motor Credit Co.

In November 1976, Curtis Williams (plaintiff) purchased a car from a Ford dealership in Houston, Texas. Ford Motor Credit Company (FMCC) (defendant) provided financing for the car purchase. Under the financing arrangement, Williams owed 30 monthly payments of $136.40, with payment due on the seventh day of each month. The financing was secured by the car. The security agreement provided that all modifications to the agreement had to be in writing. The security agreement also provided that if Williams defaulted on any payments, FMCC had the right to accelerate the remaining amount due and the right to repossess the car. Williams did not make his February 7, 1977, payment on time. However, on March 4, 1977, Williams’s wife sent FMCC two money orders: one for $151.40, representing the February payment plus a $15 late charge, and one for $136.40, representing the normal March payment. Mrs. Williams claimed that she had spoken to an FMCC representative by phone on March 3 or 4, and the representative had allegedly told Mrs. Williams that the Williamses could send in the two payments plus the late charge to keep Williams’s account current. However, also on March 4, the FMCC customer account supervisor in charge of Williams’s file reviewed Williams’s account and noticed the late February payment and the approaching due date of the March payment. The supervisor tried to contact Williams by phone in Alabama, but the Williamses’ telephone was not in service. Based on that information, the supervisor directed that Williams’s car be repossessed. The repossession occurred on March 5, and FMCC received the payments from Mrs. Williams on March 7. On March 11, FMCC sent Williams a notice of private sale stating that Williams had 10 days to redeem the car. The notice also informed Williams that Williams would be responsible for any deficiency between the car’s sale price and the amount still owed under the financing arrangement. Williams did not redeem the car. Instead, Williams’s attorney contacted FMCC to demand the return of the car based on the payments submitted by Mrs. Williams. FMCC did not return the car, and Williams sued FMCC seeking damages for the wrongful detention and conversion of the car and Mrs. Williams’s payments. At trial, the court directed a verdict in FMCC’s favor. Williams appealed.