Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1691-13T3
01-26-2015
SUE BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THRIFT INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Respondent.
Sue Baker, appellant pro se. Donna L. Thompson, attorney for respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fisher and Nugent. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L-506-13. Sue Baker, appellant pro se. Donna L. Thompson, attorney for respondent. PER CURIAM
In 2010, plaintiff Sue Baker purchased a 2000 BMW from a car dealer for $15,654.30. She made a $5000 deposit and financed the balance through defendant Thrift Investment Corporation. Upon plaintiff's default in the monthly-payment schedule, Thrift repossessed the vehicle and, after giving proper notice, sold it. After the resale, Thrift provided plaintiff with an accounting of the amount received on resale, its repossession costs, and the amount due on the loan; this notice contained the assertion that Thrift was still owed $678.95 — an amount Thrift later viewed as too minimal to warrant pursuit of a deficiency judgment.
Plaintiff then commenced this action against Thrift, seeking damages based on alleged violations of Article Nine of the Uniform Commercial Code, N.J.S.A. 12A:9-101 to 9-628, and the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20. When discovery was completed, Thrift successfully moved for summary judgment.
Plaintiff appeals, arguing:
I. THERE WAS NO DEFAULT CLAUSE.We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only the following brief comments.
II. THE NOTICE OF DISPOSITION WAS AN EXPRESS AGREEMENT.
III. THE NOTICE OF EXPLANATION MUST BE SERVED ON THE DEBTOR.
IV. DISPOSITION OF COLLATERAL WAS NOT COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE.
We discern from plaintiff's six-page discussion of the four points contained in her appeal brief that she claims the loan agreement did not permit acceleration of plaintiff's obligation upon a default. The loan documents, however, contain such a clause. In her second point, plaintiff seems to argue the notice of the resale was insufficient, but the notice given was clearly reasonable and plaintiff has not shown how she was prejudiced even if it were not. The third point apparently asserts that plaintiff was not given proper notice of Thrift's calculation of the balance due following the repossession and resale. The record belies that allegation, and the fact that no deficiency judgment was sought renders it irrelevant. And, in her fourth point, plaintiff contends the vehicle was not resold in a commercially reasonable manner. The record contains no evidence to suggest that Thrift resold the vehicle in a manner contrary to the requirements of N.J.S.A. 12A:9-627(b).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION