If there are none, we then must determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In reviewing the propriety of an order granting a motion for summary judgment, we must examine the pleadings, affidavits, and other submitted materials in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether any genuine issues of material fact are in dispute. The defendant now challenges this ruling. The motion justice ruled that defendant could not point to any facts which supported her claim that the sale was commercially unreasonable, nor could she provide facts which substantiated her belief that her monthly payments included insurance coverage. The motion justice granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment in the amount of $19,842.54 (including interest). The defendant opposed the motion for summary judgment by arguing that she made monthly payments to plaintiff which included insurance coverage and also that plaintiff failed to prove that the sale of the vehicle was commercially reasonable. It filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff initiated this action to recover the deficiency amount. The plaintiff claimed that a deficiency in the amount of $12,479.93 remained after the sale.
The still damaged car was repossessed and sold, without having been repaired, at a private auction on February 11, 1993, for $8,500. With consent of defendant, a writ of replevin was issued on November 20, 1992. The defendant subsequently stopped making payments on the car. On January 24, 1992, defendant's car was involved in an accident. The insurance coverage was in effect from December 17, 1990, until December 17, 1991. The plaintiff bought an insurance policy and charged the amount of the insurance premium to defendant by adding to defendant's monthly payment the amortized cost of the insurance. Under the contract, plaintiff had the option to purchase insurance for the vehicle if defendant did not. Pursuant to the contract's terms, defendant was responsible for maintaining physical damage insurance on the vehicle. Liberty subsequently assigned this contract to plaintiff. At that time she executed and delivered to Liberty a retail installment sales contract. The defendant purchased a 1991 Chevrolet Camaro on June 12, 1990, from Liberty Chevrolet, Inc. After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and hearing the oral arguments of counsel, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that the issues raised by this appeal should be summarily decided at this time.
Johnson (defendant), challenges the entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, General Motors Acceptance Corporation (plaintiff or GMAC). This case came before the Court for oral argument on January 26, 2000, pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the defendant's appeal should not be summarily decided. Marzilli, East Providence, for defendant.
Present WEISBERGER, C.J., LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ. 746 A.2d 122(2000) GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
0 kommentar(er)
