Court Opinion

ID: 9845918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:31:01.110148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:26.411429
License: Public Domain

*434Judge Martin (Robert M.),
dissenting.
I dissent. The defendant in this case was obligated in any event to take back the automobile and tender the balance due on the note to the lender under the repurchase agreement. Under these circumstances, the fiction of deeming the dealer to have made a bid at the purported public sale in the amount of the balance due on the note makes the entire “public sale” a sham. The bank is protected from losing any of its money, the seller is always able to retake the car, and is free to resell it without having to account for any surplus that may result to the person from whom the car was repossessed. I am of the opinion that a public sale has not taken place in this instance, and, therefore, I respectfully decline to join the judgment of the majority.