Court Opinion

ID: 9584210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:45:32.840817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:06.506013
License: Public Domain

Judge Brock
dissenting.
In my view the majority opinion completely ignores the intent of G.S. 20-58.2, which provides that the security inter*526est is perfected as of the date of delivery of the application to the Department of Motor Vehicles, when not made within ten days of the date of the security agreement.
The trial judge found as a fact that plaintiff held a security agreement dated 30 April 1966; that on 30 March 1970, she forwarded to the Department of Motor Vehicles by mail an application to record her lien with the required fee, and gave the information required by G.S. 20-58(2) ; and that the Department received the application on 31 March 1970. The trial judge further found that the sheriff of Buncombe seized the vehicle in question under levy of execution on either 14 or 15 April 1970. Therefore, according to G.S. 20-58.2, plaintiff’s security interest was perfected some fifteen days before the sheriff made his levy.
It is also interesting to note that the trial judge found as a fact that defendant was advised, at the time of the sheriff’s execution sale of the vehicle on 25 May 1970, that plaintiff claimed a lien on the vehicle in question. In spite of this, defendant chose to ignore plaintiff’s claim and the warning.
In my view, the trial judge was in error when he concluded that plaintiff has failed to perfect her security interest, and has failed to comply with G.S. 20-58, et seq.
I vote to reverse.