Opinion ID: 1673978
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: GMAC's Issue # 1: Whether the Jury Erred in Awarding Actual Damages?

Text: GMAC contends that its agents did not breach the peace and, therefore, it should not have been held liable for actual damages. Ivy, of course, disagrees. Mississippi law authorizes a creditor or secured party to repossess collateral without judicial process if he or she can do so without breaching the peace. Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-503 (1972). The legislature did not define breach of peace, but this Court has provided some indication. For example, this Court has held that entering a private driveway to repossess collateral without use of force does not constitute a breach of peace. Dearman v. Williams, 235 Miss. 360, 370, 109 So.2d 316, 320-21 (1959); Martin v. Cook, 237 Miss. 267, 276, 114 So.2d 669, 670 (1959); see Butler v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 829 F.2d 568, 569 (5th Cir.1987). This Court has also held that a creditor, who repossesses collateral despite the fact that the debtor has withheld his or her consent or has strongly objected, did not breach the peace. Commercial Credit Co. v. Cain, 190 Miss. 866, 868-70, 1 So.2d 776, 777-78 (1941); Furches Motor Co. v. Anderson, 216 Miss. 40, 52-53, 61 So.2d 674, 680 (1952). Courts in other jurisdictions have generally held that the use of trickery or deceit to peaceably repossess collateral does not constitute a breach of peace. See Parks v. Associates Commercial Corp., 181 Ga. App. 235, 351 S.E.2d 661 (1986); Speigle v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 56 Ala.App. 469, 323 So.2d 360, cert. den. 295 Ala. 420, 323 So.2d 367 (1975); Cox v. Galigher Motor Sales Co., 158 W. Va. 685, 213 S.E.2d 475 (1975); Thompson v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 324 F. Supp. 108 (D.C.S.C. 1971). But see Chrysler Credit Corp. v. McKinney, 38 UCC Rep.Serv. 1409 (Ala. 1984); Walker v. Walthall, 121 Ariz. 121, 588 P.2d 863 (1978). A Florida Court of Appeal opined that a debtor's physical objection  even from a public street  bars repossession. See Marine Midland Bank-Central v. Cote, 351 So.2d 750, 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). A Georgia Court of Appeal found a breach of peace in a case in which: (1) the creditor repossessed the debtor's automobile by blocking it with another automobile; (2) the creditor informed the debtor that he could just walk his a  home; and (3) the debtor unequivocally protested the manner of repossession. See Deavers v. Standridge, 144 Ga. App. 673, 242 S.E.2d 331, 334 (1978). The Ohio Supreme Court opined that the use of intimidation or acts fraught with the likelihood of violence constitutes a breach of peace. See Morris v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 21 Oh.St.2d 25, 254 N.E.2d 683, 685-87 (1970); accord Kirkwood v. Hickman, 223 Miss. 372, 78 So.2d 351 (1955); Harris Truck & Trailer Sales v. Foote, 58 Tenn. App. 710, 436 S.W.2d 460, 463-64 (1968). In sum, much of the litigation involving self-help repossession statutes involves the issue of whether a breach of peace has occurred. Disposition of this issue is not a simple task: Since physical violence will ordinarily result in a breach of peace, the secured party's right to repossession will end if repossession evokes physical violence, either on the part of the debtor or the secured party. At the other extreme from physical violence, a secured party may peaceably persuade the debtor to give up the collateral so that no breach of peace occurs. Between those two extreme situations  one in which violence occurs and the other in which the debtor peaceably gives up the collateral  lies the line which divides those cases in which the secured party may exercise self-help repossession and those in which he must resort to the courts. As with most dividing lines, the line between those two extremes is sometimes hard to locate and, even if it is located, it sometimes moves. 9 W. Hawkland, Uniform Commercial Code Series, at § 9-503:03 (1991). Application of the foregoing principles to the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict leads this Court to conclude that a breach of peace did occur. This Court, therefore, affirms on this issue.