Reference no: EM132114355

Part II: Repossession and Breach of the Peace

Read the case study below Pantoja-Cahue v. Ford Motor Credit Co. and answer the five questions at the end of the case study. Make certain to clearly identify your responses to the five questions.

Repossession and Breach of the Peace

Pantoja-Cahue v. Ford Motor Credit Co.

872 N.E.2d 1039 (Ill. App. 2007)

Plaintiff Mario Pantoja-Cahue filed a six-count complaint seeking damages from defendant Ford Motor Credit Company for Ford’s alleged breach of the peace and “illegal activities” in repossessing plaintiff’s automobile from his locked garage.

In August 2000, plaintiff purchased a 2000 Ford Explorer from auto dealer Webb Ford. Plaintiff, a native Spanish speaker, negotiated the purchase with a Spanish-speaking salesperson at Webb. Plaintiff signed what he thought was a contract for the purchase and financing of the vehicle, with monthly installment payments to be made to Ford. The contract was in English. Some years later, plaintiff discovered the contract was actually a lease, not a purchase agreement. Plaintiff brought suit against Ford and Webb on August 22, 2003, alleging fraud. Ford brought a replevin action against plaintiff asserting plaintiff was in default on his obligations under the lease. In the late night/early morning hours of March 11–12, 2004, repossession agents [from Doe Repossession Services] entered plaintiff’s locked garage and removed the car.

Plaintiff sought damages for Ford and Doe’s “unlawful activities surrounding the wrongful repossession of Plaintiff’s vehicle.” He alleged Ford and Doe’s breaking into plaintiff’s locked garage to effectuate the repossession and Ford’s repossession of the vehicle knowing that title to the car was the subject of ongoing litigation variously violated section 2A-525(3) of the [Uniform Commercial] Code (count I against Ford), the [federal] Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (count II against Doe),…Ford’s contract with plaintiff (count V against Ford) and section 2A-108 of the Code (count VI against Ford and Doe).

The Illinois Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of counts IV, V, and VI of plaintiff’s second amended complaint. It reversed the trial court’s dismissal of count I and remanded for further proceedings. It affirmed in part and reversed in part; and remanded the cause.

Case Questions

1. Under what circumstances, if any, would breaking into a locked garage to repossess a car not be considered a breach of the peace?

2. The court did not decide that a breach of the peace had occurred. What would determine that such a breach had occurred?

3. Why did the court dismiss the plaintiff’s claim (under UCC Article 2A) that it was unconscionable of Ford to trick him into signing a lease when he thought he was signing a purchase contract? Would that section of Article 2A make breaking into his garage unconscionable?

4. What alternatives had Ford besides taking the car from the plaintiff’s locked garage?

5. If it was determined on remand that a breach of the peace had occurred, what happens to Ford?