Schultz v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

704 S.W.2d 797, 1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 12865
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 18, 1985
Docket05-84-00726-CV
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 704 S.W.2d 797 (Schultz v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Schultz v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 704 S.W.2d 797, 1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 12865 (Tex. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinions

AKIN, Justice.

Richard Schultz appeals from a summary judgment rendered in a suit for the deficiency due on a secured debt. We hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because appellee, General Motors Acceptance Corporation (“GMAC”), failed to establish its right to recover as a matter of law. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause to that court.

In April 1978, Schultz purchased two highway truck tractors from a Chevrolet dealer under installment contracts. The contracts were then sold to GMAC. Schultz defaulted in April 1980, and in June surrendered the collateral pursuant to demand. GMAC re-sold the tractors for less than the balance due and sued Schultz for the deficiency. The trial court granted GMAC’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal Schultz contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because GMAC failed to establish as a matter of law that its sale of the tractors was conducted in a commercially reasonable matter. We agree with this contention because the affidavit of Joe Jewett, Special Collections Manager for GMAC, is not sufficient to support a summary judgment.

Jewett’s affidavit sets forth no facts concerning the sale, after foreclosure, of the tractors in question. Instead, the affidavit recites the legal conclusion that the tractors were disposed of “at public sale in conformity with reasonable commercial practices among dealers in this type industry in a commercially reasonable manner.” A legal conclusion in an affidavit is insufficient to establish the existence of a fact in support of a motion for summary judgment. Mercer v. Daoran Corp., 676 S.W.2d 580, 583 (Tex.1984). Thus, GMAC failed to establish by competent summary judgment evidence that the sale occurred in a commercially reasonable manner. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed and the cause remanded.

HOWELL, J., concurring.

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

Related

Ordonez v. Solorio
480 S.W.3d 56 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015)
Rockwall Commons Associates, Ltd. v. MRC Mortgage Grantor Trust I
331 S.W.3d 500 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Cain v. RUST INDUS. CLEANING SERVICES, INC.
969 S.W.2d 464 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Cain v. Rust Industrial Cleaning Services, Inc.
969 S.W.2d 464 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Progressive County Mutual Insurance v. Carway
951 S.W.2d 108 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Ramirez v. Transcontinental Insurance Co.
881 S.W.2d 818 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Watkins v. Hammerman & Gainer
814 S.W.2d 867 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Mary Baer Watkins v. Hammerman & Gainer
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991
Chase Commercial Corp. v. Datapoint Corp.
774 S.W.2d 359 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Pinckley v. Dr. Francisco Gallegos, M.D., P.A.
740 S.W.2d 529 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Cheatham v. Allstate of Texas, Inc.
730 S.W.2d 426 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. v. Young
720 S.W.2d 211 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Schultz v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
704 S.W.2d 797 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
704 S.W.2d 797, 1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 12865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultz-v-general-motors-acceptance-corp-texapp-1985.