GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC. v. DALKE
405 P.3d 676
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Dalke bought a mobile home in 1999, financed $39,877 through Green Tree; after ~15 years he missed six monthly payments (Dec 2014–June 2015) and Green Tree alleged $3,346 arrearage and later accelerated the loan.
- The Choctaw Nation sent two checks totaling $1,954 on Dalke’s behalf (one for $1,454 which cleared on June 9, 2015); Green Tree cashed at least one check but allegedly did not credit the account or timely return funds.
- Green Tree filed foreclosure suit on June 22, 2015; Dalke initially proceeded pro se and alleged attempts to cure were obstructed by Green Tree.
- Green Tree moved for summary judgment; trial court granted judgment and repossession, later vacated, then granted summary judgment again after briefing; Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- Dalke (later with counsel) asserted defenses including accord and satisfaction under UCC §3-311, violations of the Consumer Protection Act (deceptive/unfair practices), and breach of the security agreement’s cure right; Supreme Court found disputed material facts and reversed summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Green Tree) | Defendant's Argument (Dalke) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper to authorize repossession | Dalke was in arrears; no payments after June 10, 2015; no disputed material facts | Green Tree obstructed cure attempts, cashed Choctaw check, account not credited; factual disputes exist | Summary judgment premature; material fact issues exist that preclude SJ |
| Whether an accord and satisfaction discharged the debt (UCC §3-311) | No accord and satisfaction — no valid modification or full satisfaction tendered | Choctaw’s check(s) were tendered/paid in good faith as partial/full satisfaction and should discharge or alter claim | Fact question exists on whether UCC accord & satisfaction applies; cannot resolve on SJ |
| Whether Green Tree engaged in deceptive or unfair trade practices | Conduct did not amount to deceptive/unfair practices; proper foreclosure procedures followed | Green Tree misrepresented receipt/status of funds, refused to accept dual payments, delayed return — possibly deceptive/unfair | Possible Consumer Protection Act violations and bad faith — material factual disputes require trial |
| Whether security agreement guaranteed Dalke a right to cure before repossession | Green Tree acted within contractual remedies (acceleration/repossession) | Security agreement expressly allowed Dalke the right to cure during notice period; Green Tree obstructed that right | Whether Dalke was prevented from exercising cure is a factual issue; SJ inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee, 859 P.2d 502 (Okla. 1993) (banks must exercise good faith and fair dealing; implied covenant against impairing other party’s contractual benefits)
- Wilson v. Webb, 221 P.3d 730 (Okla. 2009) (Oklahoma Pleading Code requires pleadings give fair notice and be liberally construed to decide matters on the merits)
- K & K Food Servs., Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 3 P.3d 705 (Okla. 2000) (summary judgment standards; movant must show no genuine issue of material fact)
- Prichard v. City of Oklahoma City, 975 P.2d 914 (Okla. 1999) (even undisputed basic facts may permit different reasonable inferences, precluding summary judgment)