Legal Opinion

Nichols v. Metropolitan Bank

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided February 21, 1989No. C6-88-1879PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NIERENGARTEN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment. The district court concluded the respondent bank is not liable for damages allegedly caused by a repossession company whose workers repossessed the appellants’ automobile. We reverse.

FACTS

Appellant Gary Nichols obtained a loan from respondent Metropolitan Bank (the Bank) to purchase an automobile which he gave to his daughter, appellant Kim Nichols, as a gift. When Gary Nichols defaulted on the car loan, the Bank orally contracted with R.J. Control Service, a collection and repossession company, to repossess the automobile.

T…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Betlach v. Wayzata CondominiumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  2. Conover v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  3. Guhlke v. Roberts Truck LinesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  4. General Finance Corp. v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1987
  5. Hammes v. SukSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. MBank El Paso, N.A. v. SanchezTexas Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. RyanOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
  3. James v. Ford Motor Credit Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1994
  4. Rand v. Porsche Financial ServicesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  5. Williamson v. Fowler Toyota, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1998

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API