Court Opinion

ID: 9669050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:38:27.540852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:51.852467
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant in his motion for rehearing complains of our statement in our original opinion to the effect that there was no question of fact raised as to whether ap-pellee and appellant had an agreement at the time appellant turned possession of the automobile in question over to appellee, that appellee was to hold said automobile for a reasonable time before sale, and would notify appellant before sale was made.
We gave as our reason for making such statement that the matter was not raised until two days after the . hearing on the motion, and was not considered by the trial court. It appears that we were incorrect in that statement because there was a pleading filed by appellant one day before said hearing in which the above matters were pled, and further that said pleading there raised the point that the promise from appellee was fraudulently made in order to obtain possession of the antomobile without the necessity of bringing foreclosure proceedings. Appellee’s previously filed affidavit supporting the motion for summary judgment does not clearly controvert said pleading. Such affidavit in effect states that appellant voluntarily turned said automobile over to appellee, that he could not pay for same, and further that the automobile was sold for $610, which was all it could he sold for considering the condition it was in when returned.
Appellant does not allege that the car sold for an inadequate price, nor does he allege the automobile had a reason*689able market value of any more than the $610 at the time of repossession or sale, consequently since appellant was credited with the $610 on his note he does not by his pleadings show any damage suffered. He does allege that he had paid $228.80 on the automobile and was entitled to a judgment for that amount, as though he were suing for a recision of the original purchase agreement, of which he does- not complain.
Since appellant in his cross-action did not allege any damage by wrongful repossession of said automobile, or wrongful sale of same, and did not allege any basis upon which damage could be assessed for such alleged wrongs, we are compelled to hold that the trial court was correct in granting a summary judgment to appellee on appellant’s cross-action, as well as on appellee’s main suit.
The motion for'rehearing is denied.