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 fell six months behind (Dec 2014–Jun 2015). Green Tree filed foreclosure June 22, 2015.
- The Choctaw Nation issued two checks totaling $1,954 (one for $1,454 that cleared June 9, 2015) intended to cure part of Dalke’s $3,346 arrearage; Green Tree cashed the $1,454 check but allegedly refused to credit the account and said it would not accept separate payments.
- Green Tree moved for summary judgment asserting Dalke was in default and owed the accelerated balance; the trial court granted repossession and entered judgment.
- Dalke (initially pro se, later counsel) produced evidence of the Choctaw payments, medical records explaining his absence at a hearing, and asserted defenses including accord and satisfaction (UCC), bad faith/deceptive practices, and the contractual right to cure.
- The trial court reentered summary judgment after a second hearing; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and found material factual disputes preclude summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper to allow repossession based on default | Green Tree: Dalke was in arrears and no payment cured default; therefore no genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment is proper | Dalke: Evidence shows partial payment/attempted payment (Choctaw checks), miscrediting, and obstruction by Green Tree creating factual disputes | Summary judgment was premature; material factual disputes exist and repossession cannot be resolved on summary judgment |
| Whether an accord and satisfaction discharged the debt (UCC §3-311) | Green Tree: No effective accord and satisfaction — payments not accepted as full satisfaction and/or not received as claimed | Dalke: Tendered instrument(s) in good faith that were cashed by Green Tree, invoking accord and satisfaction as a defense | Existence of accord and satisfaction is a factual question for trial; cannot be resolved on summary judgment |
| Whether Green Tree acted in bad faith or engaged in deceptive/unfair trade practices | Green Tree: Acted within rights under contract and foreclosure procedures | Dalke: Green Tree misrepresented receipt/crediting of payments, refused to accept separate payments, delayed returning funds — possibly violating Consumer Protection Act and breaching covenant of good faith | Whether deceptive/unfair practices or bad faith occurred is disputed; summary judgment inappropriate where evidence viewed favorably to Dalke shows plausible deceptive practices |
| Whether the amount owed (acceleration balance) was properly calculated and whether Dalke retained right to cure | Green Tree: Provided balance and acceleration claim; arrearage amount justified repossession | Dalke: No amortization or accounting shown; disputed calculations and contract grants right to cure before repossession | Calculation and entitlement to cure present material factual disputes; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee, 859 P.2d 502 (Okla. 1993) (implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in banking/contract relationships)
- Wilson v. Webb, 221 P.3d 730 (Okla. 2009) (pleadings under Oklahoma code must give fair notice and be liberally construed)
- K & K Food Servs., Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 3 P.3d 705 (Okla. 2000) (summary judgment standard: no genuine issue of material fact)
- Prichard v. City of Oklahoma City, 975 P.2d 914 (Okla. 1999) (summary judgment denial where reasonable persons could draw different conclusions)