Paccar Financial Corp. v. Howard

615 So.2d 583 (Miss. 1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Herrin purchased a 1983 model eighteen-wheel Kenworth truck. P paid for it by a security agreement/retail installment contract. Herrin was to pay the total time price of $96,080.55 in forty-eight (48) monthly installments of $1,754.60 each, commencing October 14, 1983. If payments were late or not made the dealer or its assigns could repossess the truck. The agreement provided: Buyer agrees that if seller repossesses the collateral or otherwise obtains possession of it, seller will not be in wrongful possession of any property contained in the collateral or attached to it in which seller does not have a security interest. Seller agrees to make any such property available to buyer to take back at a place reasonably convenient to both parties. The dealer then assigned the contract to D. In April 1985, Herrin was delinquent. He made an agreement with P whereby P would assume possession and operation of the truck. P confirmed his obligations with Connie Huff, credit representative for D. P made payments for a few more months but D had to repossess the truck. P was informed that it was be taken to Hattiesburg. The repo man suggested that P remove his personal belongings. P removed a suitcase but left other belongings behind. P went to Hattiesburg a few days later to find out the truck was not there. The truck and P's belongings were in Wichita, Kansas. P's personal property was delivered to Freeman Windham, an acquaintance of P's who lived in Witchita, with the request that he take it to Hattiesburg. P's property was eventually placed in storage in Hattiesburg. P sued D. P got a default judgment. P and D's attorneys allegedly made cross queries to each other regarding the status of the goods. Eventually, D retained counsel in Hattiesburg and learned of the default. D motioned to set the judgment aside. It was vacated. D answered and admitted possession of the property but had requested P take possession of all the items. The trial was held, and D's motion for a directed verdict was overruled. P got $25,000. D appealed.