Ben Cooper Motor Co. v. Amey
1930 OK 188, 143 Okla. 75, 287 P. 1017 (1930)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A chattel mortgagee's repossession of collateral constitutes conversion if it occurs without the mortgagor's consent, even if the mortgagor does not physically resist, provided there is a verbal protest or other actions indicating a lack of consent.
Facts:
- Enoch Amey purchased a secondhand Dodge automobile from Ben Cooper Motor Company.
- Amey became delinquent in his payments on the purchase price, which was secured by a chattel mortgage or conditional sales contract held by Ben Cooper Motor Company.
- Agents of Ben Cooper Motor Company arrived at Amey's home to repossess the automobile.
- Amey informed the agents that he had an agreement with Ben Cooper Motor Company for more time to reinstate his payments and explicitly told them not to take the car until he could speak with Mr. Cooper.
- Amey's daughter corroborated that Amey instructed the agents not to take the car, but the agents indicated they would take it regardless to avoid a second trip.
- Amey refused to turn over the car key to the agents.
- Despite Amey's protests and refusal to provide the key, Ben Cooper Motor Company's agents proceeded to tow the automobile away from Amey's property.
Procedural Posture:
- Enoch Amey brought suit against Ben Cooper Motor Company in a trial court for conversion of a Dodge automobile.
- The trial court refused to sustain a demurrer to Amey's evidence.
- The trial court refused to instruct a verdict for Amey (meaning it did not rule in his favor as a matter of law).
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Enoch Amey and against Ben Cooper Motor Company.
- Judgment was entered in favor of Amey based on the jury's verdict.
- Ben Cooper Motor Company filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court refused to grant.
- Ben Cooper Motor Company (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a chattel mortgagee's repossession of an automobile constitute conversion when the mortgagor verbally protests the taking, refuses to surrender the keys, and the vehicle is subsequently towed away, even without physical resistance by the mortgagor?
Opinions:
Majority - EAGLETON, C.
Yes, a chattel mortgagee's repossession of an automobile constitutes conversion when the mortgagor verbally protests and withholds the car keys, even without physical resistance. The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that while a mortgagee has the right to repossess upon default, this right is limited; possession cannot be taken by force, threats of violence, or without the mortgagor's consent. Conversion is defined as any distinct act of dominion wrongfully asserted over another's personal property or inconsistent with their rights. The court clarified that physical force is not required for a wrongful taking; a clear verbal protest, coupled with the refusal to provide the means to operate the vehicle (the key), can be sufficient to negate consent and lead to conversion. The circumstances of each case, including the mortgagor's resistance, must be considered by the jury, as the finder of fact, to determine if a 'breach of peace' or a taking without consent occurred. In this case, the jury's determination that the evidence reasonably sustained a finding of conversion was upheld.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the definition of wrongful repossession, establishing that a mere verbal protest or withholding of keys, without physical violence, can be sufficient to negate consent and render a repossession a conversion. It protects consumers by placing a greater burden on repossessors to ensure explicit consent, preventing them from proceeding over a clear, though non-violent, objection. The ruling reinforces the role of the jury in assessing the totality of circumstances surrounding a repossession to determine if it constitutes a breach of the peace or a non-consensual taking, thereby empowering debtors against overly aggressive collection practices.
