The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bifferato
VINCENT A BIFFERATO, ASSOCIATE JUDGE
On September 6, oral argument was heard in the above captioned case concerning Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
In January of 1966 Defendant, Pippins, purchased a 1964 Pontiac automobile and financed the purchase with the Plaintiff, Associates Discount Corporation. Plaintiff placed a lien on the title to this automobile. In August, 1967, the Pippins traded this automobile on a purchase of a VW automobile from Defendant, Brandywine Volkswagen Ltd. Defendant, Brandywine Volkswagen Ltd, attempted to contact Plaintiff, Associates Discount Corporation, or its subsidiary to ascertain the amount to pay off the lien on the Pontiac. Brandywine Volkswagen Ltd, was informed that the pay off on said lien was $218.61. Plaintiff claims pay off of said lien should have been $1,337.79.
Suit was instituted. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff in his brief relies solely on Section 2335, Title 21, Delaware Code, which deals with the priority of liens and notices of said liens on certificates of titles of automobiles.
Defendant, Brandywine Volkswagen Ltd, admits they had notice of said lien, but claim they did everything reasonably possible to ascertain the correct pay off figure and were mislead by Plaintiff's employees. The Defendants, Pippin, claim that any error made in payment of said lien was made by Defendant, Brandywine Volkswagen Ltd.
The briefs submitted by the parties in this matter do not present to the Court sufficient law covering the facts of the case. Plaintiff relies solely on Section 2335, Title 21, Delaware Code. This deals only with the priority and notice of liens and is of no value when applied to the facts of this case. The affidavits supplied by the parties indicate that they had notice of said lien.
The question presented by the facts in this case is not one of priority of liens or notice, but what one must do after he has notice of a lien to correctly ascertain the pay off figure. There is insufficient facts presented to the Court on this question and neither side has attempted to answer it.
There appears to be factual disputes as to what was done by Brandywine Volkswagen Ltd, in contacting Plaintiff or its subsidiary. These disputes must be resolved by the trier of facts.
As to all three parties, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.