Citizens & Southern National Bank v. Thomas

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Citizens & Southern National Bank v. Thomas

372 S.E.2d 687, 188 Ga. App. 312, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 970

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 7, 1988

Docket77071

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 372 S.E.2d 687 (Citizens & Southern National Bank v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Citizens & Southern National Bank v. Thomas, 372 S.E.2d 687, 188 Ga. App. 312, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 970 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Judge.

Appellee-defendant entered into a “motor vehicle lease” agreement. The agreement and the vehicle were subsequently sold, assigned and transferred to appellant-plaintiff. Appellee made only the initial monthly payment required by the agreement and appellant repossessed the vehicle. The vehicle was sold at auction and appellant credited the proceeds to appellee’s account.

Appellant then filed this action, seeking to recover for appellee’s breach of the agreement. The case was tried before a jury and, at the close of appellant’s evidence, appellee moved for a directed verdict. Appellee predicated his motion upon appellant’s failure to comply with the notice provisions of OCGA §§ 10-1-36 and 11-9-504 (3) and upon appellant’s failure to prove that the sale of the vehicle had been conducted in a commercially reasonable manner as required by OCGA § 11-9-504 (3). The trial court granted appellee’s motion for a directed verdict and appellant appeals.

Appellant enumerates the trial court’s direction of a verdict for appellee as erroneous, urging that the asserted grounds of the motion had no merit.

The relevant provisions of the agreement signed by appellee are substantially identical to those which were contained in the “motor vehicle lease” agreement at issue in Mejia v. C & S Bank, 175 Ga. App. 80 (332 SE2d 170) (1985). The agreement in Mejia, supra at 82, was held to be a “true lease” and, therefore, the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code would be inapplicable. Since the “motor vehicle lease” agreement in the present case likewise evidences a “true lease,” rather than a disguised secured transaction, the trial court erred in directing a verdict for appellee based upon appellant’s failure to comply with the inapplicable provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carley, Judge.

Appellee-defendant entered into a “motor vehicle lease” agreement. The agreement and the vehicle were subsequently sold, assigned and transferred to appellant-plaintiff. Appellee made only the initial monthly payment required by the agreement and appellant repossessed the vehicle. The vehicle was sold at auction and appellant credited the proceeds to appellee’s account.

Appellant then filed this action, seeking to recover for appellee’s breach of the agreement. The case was tried before a jury and, at the close of appellant’s evidence, appellee moved for a directed verdict. Appellee predicated his motion upon appellant’s failure to comply with the notice provisions of OCGA §§ 10-1-36 and 11-9-504 (3) and upon appellant’s failure to prove that the sale of the vehicle had been conducted in a commercially reasonable manner as required by OCGA § 11-9-504 (3). The trial court granted appellee’s motion for a directed verdict and appellant appeals.

Appellant enumerates the trial court’s direction of a verdict for appellee as erroneous, urging that the asserted grounds of the motion had no merit.

The relevant provisions of the agreement signed by appellee are substantially identical to those which were contained in the “motor vehicle lease” agreement at issue in Mejia v. C & S Bank, 175 Ga. App. 80 (332 SE2d 170) (1985). The agreement in Mejia, supra at 82, was held to be a “true lease” and, therefore, the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code would be inapplicable. Since the “motor vehicle lease” agreement in the present case likewise evidences a “true lease,” rather than a disguised secured transaction, the trial court erred in directing a verdict for appellee based upon appellant’s failure to comply with the inapplicable provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 S.E.2d 687, 188 Ga. App. 312, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-southern-national-bank-v-thomas-gactapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack