Pantoja-Cahue v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
375 Ill. App. 3d 49, 872 N.E.2d 1039, 313 Ill. Dec. 650 (2007)
Rule of Law:
A self-help repossession constitutes a breach of the peace under the Uniform Commercial Code when it involves breaking into a debtor’s locked garage or breaching other barriers designed to exclude trespassers, even if no direct confrontation or violence occurs.
Facts:
- In August 2000, Mario Pantoja-Cahue purchased a 2000 Ford Explorer from auto dealer Webb Ford.
- Pantoja-Cahue, a native Spanish speaker, negotiated the purchase with a Spanish-speaking salesperson but signed an English contract that he believed was a purchase agreement but was actually a lease.
- Some years later, Pantoja-Cahue discovered the contract was a lease, not a purchase agreement.
- In the late night/early morning hours of March 11-12, 2004, repossession agents entered Pantoja-Cahue’s locked garage and removed the car.
Procedural Posture:
- On August 22, 2003, Mario Pantoja-Cahue filed suit against Ford Motor Credit Company ("Ford") and Webb Ford, alleging fraud.
- Ford brought a replevin action against Pantoja-Cahue, asserting he was in default on the lease.
- On May 18, 2004, the trial court dismissed Pantoja-Cahue’s claims against Ford without prejudice.
- On December 1, 2004, Pantoja-Cahue settled his case against Webb Ford, leading Webb to repurchase the car from Ford and tender it back to Pantoja-Cahue.
- On May 17, 2005, Pantoja-Cahue filed a new complaint against Ford and "Doe Repossession Company/Agent."
- On December 16, 2005, Pantoja-Cahue filed the second amended complaint, seeking damages for "unlawful activities surrounding the wrongful repossession."
- Ford filed a section 2-615 motion to dismiss counts I, IV, V, and VI of the second amended complaint in the trial court.
- On April 10, 2006, the trial court granted Ford’s motion to dismiss counts I, IV, V, and VI with prejudice, making the order final and appealable pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a).
- Pantoja-Cahue (appellant) timely filed his notice of appeal on April 26, 2006, arguing the trial court erred in granting Ford’s (appellee) motion to dismiss.
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 breaking into a debtor's locked garage to repossess a vehicle constitute a "breach of the peace" under Section 2A-525(3) of the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code, thereby preventing self-help repossession?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Karnezis
Yes, breaking into a debtor's locked garage to repossess a vehicle may constitute a breach of the peace under Section 2A-525(3) of the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code. The court noted that Section 2A-525(3) permits self-help repossession only if it can be done "without breach of the peace." While no Illinois cases directly address "breach of the peace" for lessor repossession under 2A-525(3), the court looked to Section 9-503 (now 9-609) concerning secured creditors, which has a similar provision. Relying on Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Koontz, the court affirmed that "breach of the peace" connotes conduct that incites or is likely to incite immediate public turbulence or loss of public order and tranquility, and the probability of violence is sufficient. Crucially, Koontz also acknowledged that the likelihood of a breach of the peace increases proportional to the debtor's efforts to prevent unauthorized intrusions and the creditor's defiance of those efforts, especially when entry involves "actual breaking or destruction of barriers designed to exclude trespassers." Citing Davenport v. Chrysler Credit Corp., the court emphasized that a breach of the peace is "almost certain to be found if the repossession is accompanied by the unauthorized entry into a closed or locked garage," due to public policy favoring peaceful repossessions and discouraging forced entries. The court also cited Madden v. Deere Credit Services, Inc. which found that breaking a lock to gain entrance could constitute a breach of the peace. The court concluded that Pantoja-Cahue’s allegation that Ford, through its agent, broke into his locked garage to repossess the car was sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of the peace under Section 2A-525(3). Therefore, the dismissal of Count I was reversed and remanded. The court affirmed the dismissal of Count V (Breach of Contract) because Pantoja-Cahue failed to allege a valid and enforceable contract, having consistently referred to the "alleged" lease and claiming fraud. The dismissal of Count VI (UCC Section 2A-108 - Unconscionability) was affirmed because Pantoja-Cahue failed to assert a basis for Ford's liability for Webb Ford's actions, and the unconscionability claims were conclusory without sufficient factual support. Finally, the dismissal of Count IV (Consumer Fraud Act) was affirmed because Pantoja-Cahue's allegations lacked the particularity and specificity required under the Act, relying on conclusory legal statements rather than well-pleaded facts.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the definition of "breach of the peace" within the context of self-help repossession under the Uniform Commercial Code in Illinois. By explicitly stating that breaking into a locked garage may constitute a breach of the peace, even without direct confrontation, the court strengthens debtor protections against aggressive repossession tactics. This ruling emphasizes the balancing act between a creditor's right to repossession and a debtor's right to privacy and peaceful enjoyment of their property, suggesting a higher standard for creditors seeking self-help when physical barriers are involved. Future cases will likely use this precedent to scrutinize repossessions involving entry into enclosed spaces more closely, potentially shifting more repossessions towards judicial processes when such barriers exist.
