Mitsubishi Motors Credit of Amer. Inc. v. Sheridan

Timothy Sheridan and Lamphone Chomthipe-Sheridan filed suit against Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc. for trespass, negligence, and theft arising out of what they deemed to be an unlawful repossession of a car. The Sheridans purchased the car for value and without notice of any problems with title. But the car had previously changed hands as a result of a foreclosure sale, and after the Sheridans filed their suit, Mitsubishi, the original and true owner, successfully petitioned to set aside the foreclosure judgment. See Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc. v. Robinson & Stephens, Inc. , 263 Ga. App. 168 587 SE2d 146 2003. The question before us is whether the Sheridans’ claims must fail as a result. The Sheridans purchased and obtained a Georgia title for a Mitsubishi Diamante that had been stolen, abandoned, foreclosed upon, and resold prior to the time they purchased it. Mitsubishi Motors , 263 Ga. App. at 168-169. Mitsubishi, whose only offices were located in California at the time of the foreclosure, never received notice of the foreclosure; and once it located the car, it caused the car to be repossessed from the Sheridans’ property in Georgia. Id. Thereafter, the Sheridan’s brought the present suit against Mitsubishi and the repossessing company Southeast Investigations & Recovery, Inc. “SEIR” the tort action. Mitsubishi countered with a direct action to set aside the foreclosure in the court in which it was granted. Id. at 169-170. The Sheridans’ suit was stayed pending resolution of Mitsubishi’s motion to set aside. The trial court denied Mitsubishi’s motion for directed verdict in the foreclosure action, but this Court reversed that ruling and held that Mitsibushi was entitled to have the foreclosure set aside because it never received, nor was it sent, notice of the foreclosure action. Id. at 171 1.

After the foreclosure was set aside, both Mitsubishi and SEIR moved for summary judgment in the tort action. The State Court of Fulton County denied both defendants’ motions. This Court granted Mitsubishi’s application for interlocutory appeal on April 14, 2006.1 The question before us now, given that the foreclosure has been set aside, is whether Mitsubishi is entitled to summary judgment on the Sheridans’ claims.