Yes. The court decided that Metzger gets to keep the car free of the loan. There is a specific law designed to protect regular people who buy something in good faith based on official documents. Since Metzger wasn't a car dealer, paid for the car, and had no way of knowing about the secret loan because of the DMV's mistake, the law says she is the rightful owner. Americredit argued that other, more general laws about loans should apply, but the court said the specific 'innocent buyer' rule is the one that fits this situation perfectly and should be used.

Yes, Metzger gets to keep the car free of Americredit's loan because she meets all the requirements of the law. She bought the car fairly, not knowing about the loan, and the Georgia title didn't show the loan. Even though Americredit's loan was still valid in Georgia, a law protects innocent buyers like Metzger in this situation. So, Metzger had the sole right to the car, and Americredit wrongly took it from her. The trial court made a mistake siding with Americredit.

"[T] o establish a claim for conversion, the complaining party must show (1) title to the property or the right of possession,(2) actual possession in the other party,(3) demand for return of the property, and (4) refusal by the other party to return the property

"In order to determine the meaning and purpose behind the enactment of a Georgia Commercial Code provision that is taken verbatim from the UCC, we turn to the UCC Official Comments for assistance."

Finally, even assuming arguendo that the statutes could be read as conflicting, the rules of statutory construction dictate that the more recent and specific provisions of the CON Act govern over the older and more general provisions of the APA.

—holding that Revised Article 9 governed the dispute between a holder of a pre-2001 security interest in a vehicle and a 2002 purchaser of the same vehicle

Specifically, CertiFi argues that because Trotman's confidentiality agreement required him to return or destroy any training materials, Velociteach had abandoned them, which would preclude a conversion claim due to an absence of Velociteach's right of possession

—stating that pursuant to Georgia's version of Revised UCC § 9-303, "even when a security interest in goods has been perfected in another state, Georgia law determines perfection and priority issues once the goods become `covered'by a Georgia certificate of title, which occurs when a valid application and fee are submitted to the Georgia DMV

In our construction of statutes, we are also required "to avoid a construction that makes some language mere surplusage

Yes. A good faith purchaser of a vehicle takes it free of a prior perfected security interest under these circumstances. The court found that Metzger's situation squarely fits the exception outlined in OCGA § 11-9-337(1). This statute protects a non-dealer buyer who gives value for a vehicle and receives it after the issuance of a clean certificate of title, without knowledge of the pre-existing security interest. The court determined that all six requirements of the statute were met: 1) the security interest was perfected under another jurisdiction's law (New York), 2) Georgia issued a certificate of title that did not show the security interest, 3) Metzger was not in the business of selling cars, 4) she gave value for the car, 5) she received delivery after the erroneous Georgia title was issued, and 6) she had no knowledge of Americredit's lien. The court rejected Americredit's argument that other general UCC provisions should control, applying the canon of statutory construction that a more specific statute (OCGA § 11-9-337) prevails over more general ones. This specific statute is designed to protect purchasers who rely on a clean certificate of title issued by the state.

Yes. Metzger took the vehicle free of Americredit's security interest under OCGA § 11-9-337(1) because all six requirements of the statute were met. Metzger was a buyer of the vehicle who gave value, she received delivery after issuance of a Georgia title that did not reflect Americredit's lien due to a clerical error, and she had no knowledge of the security interest. Although Americredit's security interest remained perfected under Georgia law after Strong applied for a Georgia title, OCGA § 11-9-337(1) still operates to allow a good faith purchaser like Metzger to take free of that security interest. Therefore, Metzger had the exclusive right of possession, making Americredit's repossession an act of conversion. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Americredit on this claim.

Metzger v. Americredit Financial Services, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot