The American Repossessor

The by-line, “Out of the Chat room into the Court room,” is an attempt to match recent internet discussions or issues with recent case law decisions.

Police involvement in self-help repossession is a recurring theme of on-line discussions. Some of the contributors to these chats claim to be ex-police officers who provide their opinions based on their criminal law experience. Unfortunately criminal law experience does not translate particularly well to the civil law self-help as a police officer learned in a case filed in federal court, which was decided in November 2009.

Before we look at the facts lets identify the parties.

Eric——owns a used car lot and works as a full time employee of the City Police Department.

David—-manages Eric’s used car lot.

Shayla—purchased a Honda for Eric’s used car lot and is the Debtor.

Ray——-works as a full time employee of the City Police Department.

This case arises as a result of the purchase of a Honda by Shayla from a used-car lot owned by Eric. Shayla signed a commercial automobile-sales contract and a separate note covering the down payment. The first payment of the down payment note in the amount of $600 was due on June 15 2007.

On June 15, 2007, Shayla obtained a money order in the amount of $200.00 to take to the used-car lot as partial payment of the amount due that date.

When Shayla drove onto the used-car lot an employee pulled behind her so that she could not get out. Shayla went into the office, where the manager, David, blocked her exit. Feeling threatened, Shayla used the used-car lot’s phone to call 911. Shayla requested police assistance from the dispatcher. David the manager called Eric the owner, who was on duty for the City Police Department at the time.

Eric, in police uniform, wearing a badge and a gun, responded to the problem at his used-car lot riding a police motorcycle. When he arrived, Eric knew his employees had blocked in Shayla’s Honda by using a car from the used-car lot’s inventory.

When the “officially dispatched” police officer, Ray arrived, he confronted Shayla, telling her that the car lot wanted its car and she was going to have to leave it. Ray then instructed Shayla to remove her personal belongings from the vehicle and hand over the keys.

Shayla contends that Eric and his manager, David acted in concert with police officer, Ray to seize her and her vehicle. Neither Eric nor his manager, David deny that when Shayla arrived at the used car lot an employee blocked the Honda in to prevent Shayla from leaving with her vehicle.

The Court found Shayla was in her vehicle, was blocked in by a used car lot employee, and was then confronted first by the manager, David, then by the owner, Eric, and finally by Ray who had been officially dispatched by the Police Department.

While standing outside of her vehicle, Shayla was instructed to take all of her belongings out of her vehicle and hand over the keys. Shayla stated in her deposition “Like I had a cop standing in front of me with a gun that was already pissed off at me so I needed to give him the keys.”

Eric and his manager David did not deny that they took the actions described and offered no evidence to support a conclusion that a reasonable person in Shayla’s position would have felt free to leave the lot with her vehicle.

The Court found that Eric, in his capacity as owner of the used car lot and his manager, David, in his individual capacity, engaged in activities sufficient to sustain liability under federal law. The Court ruled that Shayla demonstrated that she is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on her claim of unconstitutional seizure of her vehicle and her person.

As an aside the Police Department settled with Shayla in arbitration and Shayla’s attorney indicated during the case that he may pursue Eric and his manager, David on other civil claims in state court including wrongful repossession.