Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Business Credit Leasing, Inc. v. Money's Ford, Inc.
Citations: 582 So. 2d 555; 1991 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 243; 1991 WL 60033Docket: 2900080
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; April 19, 1991; Alabama; State Appellate Court
An appeal from a summary judgment centers on an oral lease agreement between David Money of Money’s Ford, Inc. and Mike Dirmann of Automotive Computer Support (ACS) for a computer system, with monthly payments of $480.60. Money paid $961.20 for the first and last payments on September 14, 1988, and signed a document labeled 'Equipment Lease Agreement' upon delivery on October 13, 1988, but did not sign in the lessee or guarantor spaces. Banker’s Trust of Louisiana was listed as the nominal lessor, while Autocomp Software, the actual rights holder of the accounting software, later invoiced Ford for software fees. After unsuccessful attempts to resolve payment issues with Dirmann, Ford stopped payments to ACS, claiming misrepresentation. Business Credit Leasing (BCL), the assignee of Banker’s Trust, contended Ford was liable for the lease payments and later sought payment for a deficiency after selling the returned equipment. Ford filed a complaint seeking rescission of the oral lease, asserting the written lease was void, and sought damages. BCL counterclaimed for the deficiency, but the court granted summary judgment to Ford, determining Money did not sign the lease as a party or guarantor, and that the defendants lacked authority to lease the software to Ford. BCL's appeal is affirmed, with the court confirming that summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issues of material fact exist, consistent with established legal standards. The moving party must initially demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists, shifting the burden to the non-moving party to present substantial evidence supporting its claims (Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County). The court assessed whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Ford while denying BCL’s counterclaim for liability under the lease agreement. BCL failed to provide substantial evidence to contest Ford's claims, justifying the trial court's decision. Under Ala.Code 1975, 6-5-101, legal fraud can arise from misrepresentations made willfully or recklessly, or by mistake, which induce reliance by another party. Ford argued Dirmann misrepresented that the software cost was included in the lease payments, despite knowing or having reason to know this was false. The court noted that knowledge of misrepresentation is not essential for fraud claims. Money's reliance on Dirmann’s statements, which led him to issue checks for the lease, indicated a material inducement to contract, as the software was crucial to the computer system’s utility. The trial revealed that Ford was unauthorized to use the software without paying a fee to Autocomp, with no evidence from BCL to refute Dirmann’s misrepresentation. Furthermore, Money's signature on the lease was forged, rendering the lease effectively unsigned, as the personal guaranty was a material aspect of the agreement. Since BCL acknowledged the forgery and failed to provide counter-evidence, the trial court affirmed that no genuine issue of material fact existed, leading to the conclusion that Ford was entitled to summary judgment. The ruling was upheld, with the application for rehearing denied.