Court Opinion

ID: 9539163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:47:39.458585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:28.658977
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting.
I would affirm the decision of the district court judge. It is conceded that Green Tree has fully complied with every provision of the U.C.C. when Green Tree lawfully repossessed, lawfully took title in its name, did not give notice of intent to retain the collateral in satisfaction of the debt (because strict foreclosure was not intended), afforded all rights of redemption, lawfully sold the collateral, and now lawfully seeks to recover its loss by deficiency judgment. The sale must have been within a reasonable time, and it was. The U.C.C. provides for every aspect of this transaction. Yet the court refuses to accept the U.C.C. as enacted by the legislature and now proceeds to make new law. Under this new law, not found in the U.C.C., if the creditor, to facilitate resale, takes title in its name, it will always lose. If the secured property is worth more than the debt, the debtor can recover; and if it is worth less, the debtor pays nothing. And for what purpose? The court says it is for a bright line rule. I question if this “bright line” rule is of any value. But if it is, then surely it is the business of the legislature to enact the “bright line” rule and not this court.
There is a benefit to the creditor taking title to facilitate sale. The court suggests that the buyer, at sale after repossession, should be given, rather than title, a bushel basket of papers establishing the right of *566repossession, notices, expiration of redemption rights, fair market value, and full compliance with the law. From these, the buyer may then obtain title. Thus now, by this decision, required foreclosure will make sale difficult and adversely affect the sale price.
Finally, I disagree with what is the basic premise for the court’s decision — that Green Tree’s taking title in its name “interferes with” and “abrogates” appellants’ right of redemption. That statement certainly is not correct in this case, nor do I think it is correct in any case. In this case, appellants were repeatedly notified in writing of the right of redemption, encouraged to redeem, and informed of the balance of indebtedness and the amount necessary for redemption. They chose not to redeem for obvious reasons.
Also, I think it clear that a right of redemption is not lost by transfer of title. The transferee takes title subject to the right of redemption.
So what we have here, purely and simply, is a court making law. Sadly it is the court making bad law, for from this day forward every buyer at private sale will ■ receive a basket of papers which can be used to obtain title — and the title is good if the papers demonstrate full compliance with the law of repossession, foreclosure and sale.
A wizened old justice of the peace was asked, “Do judges make law?” He responded, “Of course they do. I made some myself today.” And so today we too make law.