Court Opinion

ID: 9884620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:03:55.842324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:39.834380
License: Public Domain

ROBB, Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority's resolution of the breach of the peace issue. However, because I believe there are issues of material fact with respect to whether the Bank should be estopped to assert a superior interest in the backhoe, I respectfully dissent from the majority's resolution of this issue.
There are several estoppel doctrines, including equitable estoppel, all of which are *1087based on the same underlying concept: "a person, who, by deed or conduct, has induced another to act in a particular manner, will not be permitted to adopt an inconsistent position, attitude, or course of conduct that causes injury to the other." Roberts v. ALCOA, Inc., 811 N.E.2d 466, 475 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). Equitable estoppel is available if one party, through its representatives or course of conduct, knowingly misleads or induces another party to believe and act upon their conduct in good faith and without knowledge of the facts. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ginther, 803 N.E.2d 224, 234 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). The requirements for equitable es-toppel are: 1) a representation or concealment of material facts; 2) made with knowledge, actual or constructive, of the facts and with the intention that the other party act upon it; 3) made to a party ignorant of the facts; and 4) which induces the other party to rely or act upon it to his detriment. Id.
The majority assumes there was an oral contract regarding Ward's purchase of the backhoe. See op. at 1085. Yet, despite knowing of its security interest in the backhoe, the bank did not disclose this interest to Ward prior to entering into the agreement-concealment of a known material fact. True, a financing statement disclosing the security interest was properly filed. However, the security interest was not disclosed to Ward, and given the informality of the dealings between Ward and the Bank, the Bank had reason to know that Ward would not independently search the records before acting on the Bank's agreement that he need not take out a new loan to purchase the backhoe. Moreover, according to the evidence favorable to Ward, the non-movant, the Bank affirmatively stated an intention not to take the backhoe when Cheyenne's loan went into default. Ward paid the full amount for the backhoe before finding out about the security interest-relying to his detriment on the Bank's agreement without knowing the material facts. Given this evidence, I would hold that there is at least a question of fact regarding the Bank's entitlement to assert its security interest given its conduct and statements prior to repossessing the backhoe.