Nichols v. Metropolitan Bank
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
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
- Betlach v. Wayzata CondominiumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Conover v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Guhlke v. Roberts Truck LinesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- General Finance Corp. v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1987
- Hammes v. SukSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- MBank El Paso, N.A. v. SanchezTexas Supreme Court · 1992
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. RyanOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
- James v. Ford Motor Credit Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1994
- Rand v. Porsche Financial ServicesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
- Williamson v. Fowler Toyota, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1998
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.