Case Title: Massey Ferguson Credit Corp., Inc. v. Stowe

Citation: 

Docket Number: 85-19

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1985-09-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Massey Ferguson Credit Corp., Inc. v. Stowe1985 WY 142706 P.2d 668Case Number: 85-19Decided: 09/17/1985MASSEY FERGUSON CREDIT CORPORATION, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, APPELLANT (PLAINTIFF), 

v. 

RALPH V. STOWE, APPELLEE (DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF), 

v. 

GARY BARNEY, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR A & I EQUIPMENT, INC., AND MASSEY FERGUSON, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.
Supreme Court of Wyoming
MASSEY FERGUSON CREDIT 
CORPORATION, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, APPELLANT (PLAINTIFF), 

v. 

RALPH V. STOWE, APPELLEE 
(DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF), 

v. 

GARY BARNEY, TRUSTEE IN 
BANKRUPTCY FOR A & I EQUIPMENT, INC., AND MASSEY FERGUSON, INC., A MARYLAND 
CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.

Rehearing Denied October 
10, 1985.

 
 
Appeal from the District 
Court, FremontCounty, Robert B. Ranck, 
J.

 
 
Joel M. Vincent 
of Hettinger and Leedy, P.C., Riverton, for appellant 
(plaintiff).

F.M. Andrews, 
Jr., of Andrews and Anderson, P.C., Riverton, for appellee 
(defendant/plaintiff).

Before THOMAS, C.J., and 
ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.

BROWN, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     A portion of this case 
was before the Wyoming Supreme Court before in Massey Ferguson, Inc. v. Stowe, Wyo., 
686 P.2d 604 (1984). In that case we modified the judgment and affirmed. Upon 
remand to the district court, the remanded case together with a deficiency 
claim, were consolidated and both matters disposed of in a single 
judgment.

[¶2.]     The issue according to 
appellant is:

"Whether that judgment 
entered by the district court on December 11, 1984, in Massey Ferguson Credit Corporation vs. Ralph 
V. Stowe, is contrary to that mandate of the supreme court previously issued 
pursuant to supreme court decision in case No. 83-240, entitled Massey Ferguson, Inc., a Maryland 
Corporation, appellant, vs. Ralph V. Stowe, appellee."

[¶3.]     We will 
affirm.

[¶4.]     Appellee, Ralph V. 
Stowe, purchased a tractor from Massey Ferguson, Inc., in 1981 for $66,150. The 
purchase was accomplished by an installment contract. Stowe made a down payment 
of $33,339.45; the balance of $32,810.50 was financed by Massey Ferguson Credit 
Corporation (hereinafter Massey Credit). Massey Credit is a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of Massey Ferguson, Inc.

[¶5.]     Stowe had problems with 
the tractor and in 1982 sued Massey Ferguson, Inc., for breach of warranty. 
Stowe did not pay Massey Credit the amounts due under the installment contract; 
Massey Credit repossessed the tractor, sold it at a foreclosure sale and a 
deficiency resulted. The suit against Massey Ferguson, Inc., by Stowe for breach 
of warranty resulted in a jury verdict and judgment in favor of Stowe. In the 
verdict and judgment, Stowe was awarded the full purchase price of the tractor 
and other items of damage. On appeal we reduced the judgment by $32,810.51 
because Stowe had not paid that sum to anyone.1 We affirmed the judgment but 
modified it to reflect that Stowe was entitled to $59,680.99 and costs. Massey Ferguson, Inc. v. Stowe, 
supra.

[¶6.]     The claim of Massey 
Credit against Stowe for a deficiency did not surface again until after our 
mandate in the case for breach of warranty.2 The breach of warranty case on 
remand and the deficiency case were again consolidated for trial and disposition 
was made of this consolidated case, evidenced by a judgment dated December 10, 
1984, from which this appeal was taken. The main problem after remand was how 
the undisputed $15,064.59 deficiency related to the $59,680.99 judgment in favor 
of Stowe.3 Because Massey Credit is a 
wholly-owned subsidiary of Massey Ferguson, Inc., and because of the way both 
corporations and Stowe dealt with each other in the tractor transaction, the 
parties and the trial court considered and treated the corporations as the same 
entity. There has never been an issue in treating the two corporations as a 
single entity. Ideally, when the breach of warranty case was appealed to this 
court, we should have been advised by stipulation, or otherwise, concerning the 
status of the deficiency claim. In that happy event we could have disposed of 
all the issues between the parties in the opinion.

[¶7.]     In its December 10, 
1984, judgment, after considering the deficiency factor, the court arrived at a 
judgment as follows:

"* * * Stowe has paid 
$33,339.45 by cash and trade-in and $22,515 by proceeds of foreclosure sale; 
totalling $55,854.45; that the pay-off on the contract on the foreclosure date 
was $32,810.55; that there is a deficiency remaining of $10,295.55, which 
deficiency is due from Ralph Stowe to Massey Ferguson Credit Corporation; that 
said deficiency should be subtracted from the total Judgment, in addition to the 
$10,703.50 not allowed as damages by the Supreme Court opinion; that Stowe's 
total Judgment should be $82,195.99 after making allowance for the deficiency 
due Massey Ferguson Credit Corporation.

"It is therefore ordered 
adjudged and decreed: That that certain Judgment in favor of Ralph Stowe and 
against Massey Ferguson Inc., be modified to a total Judgment of 
$82,195.99:

"Further ordered that 
such modification is in full and complete satisfaction of the claims of Massey 
Ferguson Credit Corporation against Ralph Stowe."

[¶8.]     In his appeal brief 
appellant states:

"It is the contention of 
the appellant that the District Court should have entered judgment in favor of 
Stowe in the sum of $59,680.99 less the sum of $10,295.99, that being the 
deficiency left after the sale of the tractor, excluding any accrued 
interest."

[¶9.]     In considering the 
problem here we receive some guidance from treatises and Wyoming case 
law.

"* * * [T]he trial court 
may consider and decide any matters left open by the appellate court, and is 
free to make any order or direction in further progress of the case, not 
inconsistent with the decision of the appellate court, as to any question not 
presented or settled by such decision. The issues are generally open on a 
retrial when a case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. If the 
mandate speaks only in the light of the special facts found, the lower court is 
at liberty to proceed in all other respects in the manner that, according to its 
judgment, justice may require. * * *" 5 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, § 992, pp. 
419-420 (1962). 

"When a case is affirmed, 
but remanded to the District Court for modification of the judgment consistent 
with the appellate court's opinion, the trial court is bound to substantially 
comply with the mandate, and its discretion is strictly limited. It has 
authority to determine only those issues directed by the mandate and opinion, 
and issues necessary to reach a decision on the mandated issues. * * *" Sanders v. Gregory, Wyo., 
652 P.2d 25, 26 (1982).

[¶10.]  The jury verdict in the breach of 
warranty case clearly indicated that the jury determined that Stowe should be 
reimbursed for the amount that he paid for the tractor. In our opinion in that 
appeal we modified the award by deducting $32,810.51 because Stowe had not paid 
that amount. In that opinion no consideration was given to the deficiency 
because the matter was not before us. In the present case on appeal we become 
aware that Stowe is obligated to pay an additional amount for the tractor, that 
is, the amount of the deficiency. Therefore, Stowe is entitled to be reimbursed 
for an additional amount in order to be consistent with the intent of the jury 
verdict.

[¶11.]  The law with respect to allocation of 
proceeds from a foreclosure sale is set out in § 34-21-963(a)(i, ii), W.S. 
1977:

"(a) A secured party 
after default may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any or all of the 
collateral in its then condition or following any commercially reasonable 
preparation or processing. Any sale of goods is subject to the article on sales 
(article 2). The proceeds of disposition shall be applied in the order following 
to:

"(i) The reasonable 
expenses of retaking, holding, preparing for sale, selling and the like and, to 
the extent provided for in the agreement and not prohibited by law, the 
reasonable attorney's fees and legal expenses incurred by the secured 
party;

"(ii) The satisfaction of 
indebtedness secured by the security interest under which the disposition is 
made."

According to 
subparagraph (ii) above, the $22,515 net proceeds realized from the foreclosure 
sale should be applied to Stowe's indebtedness.

[¶12.]  Consolidating the breach of warranty case 
and the deficiency case, together with treating Massey Ferguson, Inc., and 
Massey Credit as a single entity results in posturing a claim by Stowe for 
breach of warranty, and in effect, a counterclaim by the Massey Ferguson entity 
for a deficiency resulting from the sale of the tractor.

[¶13.]  In determining the judgment that Stowe 
should have, we apply the facts and law as follows:

Amount of original 
judgment                        
$103,195.00 

Balance due on the 
contract in 

accordance with our first 

opinion                                                           
   -32,810.51 

Damages which no longer 
are 

in issue pursuant to our 
first 

opinion                                                           
   -10,703.50 

Adjusted judgment in 
accordance 

with our first opinion 
                         
            
 $ 59,680.99 

Balance due on the 
contract of 

$32,810.51 plus earned 
finance 

charges and earned past 
due 

interest in the amount 

of $4,769.08                                      
            
  +37,579.59 

Amount of the deficiency 
still 

due to Massey Credit 
                                  
   -15,064.59 

Net judgment in favor of 
Stowe                    
 $ 
82,195.99

[¶14.]  Affirmed.

1 The judgment in favor of 
Stowe was modified in other respects but that is not relevant in this 
case.

2 The case for breach of 
warranty and the case for a deficiency were consolidated by an order dated 
August 12, 1982. This order apparently fell through the cracks or was ignored. 
In any event, the court and parties proceeded with the breach of warranty action 
without regard to the deficiency action through trial and appeal. The caption of 
the judgment in the breach of warranty trial showed Massey Credit as a plaintiff 
although no issues on deficiency were presented to the jury nor did the verdict 
mention Massey Credit.

3 In his brief Stowe says: 
"At the time of trial [breach of warranty trial] the parties had agreed the 
deficiency was due and payable, and no issue remained for trial. No record was 
made of this, and Massey Ferguson Credit Corporation put on no evidence of the 
deficiency. Not being privy to this agreement, the Supreme Court correctly 
applied the law, but was mistaken as to the facts * * *."