Penrod

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Penrod

Good Law
611 F.3d 1158·2010 WL 2794409·72 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 718·2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14588
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 16, 2010No. 08-60037California2,460 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mills, J.

The question presented in this case is whether a creditor has a purchase money security interest in the “negative equity” of a vehicle traded in at the time of a new vehicle purchase. Because we answer this question in the negative, we affirm the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”).

I. BACKGROUND

In September 2005, Marlene Penrod purchased a 2005 Ford Taurus from a California Ford dealership. According to the figures recited by the BAP, 1 the price of the car, including tax and license, was approximately $25,600. Penrod traded in her 1999 Ford Explorer and paid approxi *1160 mately $1,000 down for her new vehicle. She owed over $13,000 on the Explorer and she received $6,000 in credit for the vehicle. Therefore, there was over $7,000 in “negative equity” on the trade-in vehicle.

The dealership paid off the remaining balance on the Explorer and added the negative equity to the amount financed. Penrod financed approximately $31,700 in order to purchase a vehicle that cost approximately $25,600. According to the contract, Penrod was to pay twenty percent interest on the loan. The dealership subsequently assigned the contract to AmeriCredit Financial…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.