GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC. v. DALKE
2017 OK 74
Okla.2017Background
- Dalke financed a 2000 mobile home with Green Tree in 1999; after ~15 years he missed six months of payments (Dec 2014–June 2015).
- Choctaw Nation sent two checks totaling $1,954 (one for $1,454 which cleared June 9, 2015) to pay part of the arrearage; Green Tree cashed one check but later told Dalke it would not accept separate payments and delayed or returned funds.
- Green Tree filed foreclosure on June 22, 2015, alleging Dalke owed $49,900.34; Green Tree moved for summary judgment arguing Dalke was in arrears.
- Trial court initially granted summary judgment (Dec 2015); that judgment was vacated after Dalke obtained counsel and the hearing was reset. On April 21, 2016 the court again granted summary judgment and ordered repossession.
- Dalke asserted defenses including accord and satisfaction under UCC §3-311, violations of the Consumer Protection Act/bad-faith conduct, and that the security agreement gave him a right to cure; he also produced checks and medical evidence regarding missing the initial hearing.
- Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and held material factual disputes (receipt/crediting of Choctaw payment, amount due, and alleged obstruction) made summary judgment premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was summary judgment appropriate to permit foreclosure? | Green Tree: Dalke was in arrears; no disputed material facts; entitled to judgment as a matter of law. | Dalke: factual disputes exist (payments received/credited, amount due, obstruction) so summary judgment is improper. | Reversed — material factual disputes preclude summary judgment. |
| Did an accord and satisfaction discharge the arrearage under UCC §3-311? | Green Tree: No valid accord and satisfaction; payments insufficient and not intended as full satisfaction. | Dalke: Choctaw's check(s) tendered in good faith and cashed by creditor, supporting accord and satisfaction defense. | Not decided on merits — existence of disputed facts about receipt/intent precludes resolution on summary judgment. |
| Did Green Tree violate consumer-protection / act in bad faith by obstructing cure? | Green Tree: Actions lawful; no deceptive conduct negating rights. | Dalke: Green Tree misrepresented receipt, refused to accept split payments, delayed refund — possibly deceptive/unfair practices. | Court found factual questions exist as to deceptive/unfair practices and good faith — summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Did the security agreement provide Dalke a right to cure before repossession that was impeded? | Green Tree: Right to accelerate/repossess because default existed; no enforceable modification. | Dalke: Contract explicitly allows a cure period; creditor impeded cure rights. | Material factual dispute whether creditor prevented cure; summary judgment premature. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Webb, 221 P.3d 730 (Okla. 2009) (pleadings must give fair notice and be liberally construed).
- First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee, 859 P.2d 502 (Okla. 1993) (implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in contracting).
- K & K Food Servs., Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 3 P.3d 705 (Okla. 2000) (summary judgment standard requires no genuine issue of material fact).
- Prichard v. City of Oklahoma City, 975 P.2d 914 (Okla. 1999) (summary judgment must be viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party).
- Skinner v. Braum's Ice Cream Store, 890 P.2d 922 (Okla. 1995) (summary judgment standards and evidentiary view favoring nonmovant).