Isiah Walker and Alfreda Walker v. Atlantic National Bank of Seminole

Fifth Circuit

Isiah Walker and Alfreda Walker v. Atlantic National Bank of Seminole

629 F.2d 1088, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 12547

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 5, 1980

Docket80-5450

StatusPublished

This text of 629 F.2d 1088 (Isiah Walker and Alfreda Walker v. Atlantic National Bank of Seminole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Isiah Walker and Alfreda Walker v. Atlantic National Bank of Seminole, 629 F.2d 1088, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 12547 (5th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The judgment for the lender in this Truth in Lending case is affirmed on the basis of the well reasoned district court opinion reported at 489 F.Supp. 243 (M.D.Fla.1980).

The district court there held that, in the financing of a single personal or family automobile, the language of the after acquired property clause in the financing agreement was not ambiguous and should be construed to comprehend only items added to or replaced on the automobile, not a replacement of the automobile itself, when such a construction is reasonable and would place the agreement in accord with both the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1601-91, and Fla.Stat. § 679.9-204 (1966), and when a contrary construction would cause the agreement to violate both.

Although the clause might be ambiguous or could be interpreted differently if some other security such as household furnishings were involved, see Pollock v. General Finance Corp., 535 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1976), modified, 552 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 891, 98 S.Ct. 265, 54 L.Ed.2d 176 (1977), it is clear and unambiguous in relation to an automobile, the transfer of which is precisely regulated by Florida law. See Fla.Stat.Ann. §§ 319.22-.24 (1975 & Supp.1980).

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

The judgment for the lender in this Truth in Lending case is affirmed on the basis of the well reasoned district court opinion reported at 489 F.Supp. 243 (M.D.Fla.1980).

The district court there held that, in the financing of a single personal or family automobile, the language of the after acquired property clause in the financing agreement was not ambiguous and should be construed to comprehend only items added to or replaced on the automobile, not a replacement of the automobile itself, when such a construction is reasonable and would place the agreement in accord with both the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1601-91, and Fla.Stat. § 679.9-204 (1966), and when a contrary construction would cause the agreement to violate both.

Although the clause might be ambiguous or could be interpreted differently if some other security such as household furnishings were involved, see Pollock v. General Finance Corp., 535 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1976), modified, 552 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 891, 98 S.Ct. 265, 54 L.Ed.2d 176 (1977), it is clear and unambiguous in relation to an automobile, the transfer of which is precisely regulated by Florida law. See Fla.Stat.Ann. §§ 319.22-.24 (1975 & Supp.1980).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

629 F.2d 1088, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 12547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isiah-walker-and-alfreda-walker-v-atlantic-national-bank-of-seminole-ca5-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack