Court Opinion

ID: 9789932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:44:05.615707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:25.250051
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Justice,
dissenting.
Bowers has never disputed that there were three payments remaining as of the date of the acceleration of the note, January 11, 1980. These payments were necessarily those due December 4, January 4, and February 4, since all agree that February 4 was the date for the final payment. Since the time for making two out of those remaining three payments had passed as of January 11, the credit union was clearly acting within its legal rights in electing to accelerate the note on that date.
Bowers stated in his memorandum in support of his statement of genuine issues:
Plaintiffs submit that it is strange and somewhat telling that defendant .. . waited until there were three payments remaining to be made on a thirty-six month contract to take repossession action against them. (Emphasis added)
Likewise, Bowers’ answer to Interrogatory No. 1 quoted in the majority opinion clearly states that there were “three payments remaining to be paid by February” and acknowledged that the December payment was not sent to the credit union until January 15, after the credit union had elected to accelerate the note. Similarly, Bowers’ counsel at the oral argument on the motion for summary judgment summed up his client’s position as follows:
Mr. Bowers’ position is that at the time of the acceleration here, he was endeavoring to find out what he owed, that he did not feel that he was in default on the note, and that he was attempting to find out why the Credit Union felt that he was in default on the note as opposed to— They’re right there is no dispute that the January 4th payment was due as of the date of the January 11th letter. The December 4th payment as of the date that the January 11th letter was written was due. That payment was made, and the Credit Union was informed that they — the payments would be made on a regular schedule in the January 15th letter from Bowers which you have before you. (Emphasis added).
Based on the foregoing admissions by Bowers and his attorney that both the December and the January payments were due as of January 11,1 find it impossible to agree with the majority’s conclusion that a fact question remains as to whether “Bowers was in fact in arrears and in default on the loan at the time Alaska Credit Union accelerated the remaining payments.”