McCoolidge v. Oyvetsky
874 N.W.2d 892
Neb.2016Background
- McCoolidge bought a structurally damaged 2008 Honda Element online for $7,500, had it shipped to Nebraska, and asked the Tennessee seller to assign title to his dealer entity, Cars on Keystone.
- Multiple Tennessee certificates showed a tangled chain of assignments involving a lessor and third parties (Veritas/Honda Lease Trust/William McInnis); McCoolidge received various certificates but had trouble registering title in Nebraska.
- McCoolidge repaired the Element (≈$8,000), never drove it, stored it (claiming storage value), acquired substitute transportation ($5-6k), and did not remove a donated wheelchair ramp attached to the vehicle.
- He sued the individual seller, the Tennessee dealership, and the dealership’s surety (Travelers) for breach of the warranty of title under Neb. U.C.C. § 2-312 and sought damages (storage, loss of use, wasted repairs, costs to obtain clear title).
- The district court found an initial breach of the warranty of title but concluded McCoolidge later received a registrable certificate in 2011 and failed to prove damages caused by the delay or remaining title defects; judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sellers breached warranty of title | Sellers failed to deliver "good title"; certificates left a third-party cloud | Sellers delivered documents sufficient to eventually register title | Court: Sellers initially breached §2-312 by delivering defective title, but later provided a registrable certificate |
| Whether a later-registrable certificate "cures" the earlier breach | Registrability is not equivalent to "good title"; missing bill of sale and third-party on title left shadow | Registrable certificate supplied in 2011 cured breach for purposes of plaintiff's losses | Court: need not decide if shadow remained because plaintiff failed to prove damages from any remaining defect |
| Measure and proof of damages for breach of title | Entitled to repair costs, storage, loss of use, and costs to obtain clear title | Plaintiff did not prove causation, value diminution, or actual expenses tied to breach | Court: Damages governed by Neb. U.C.C. §§2-714 and 2-715; plaintiff failed to prove extent of damages with reasonable certainty; denial affirmed |
| Entitlement to incidental/consequential damages (storage, loss of ramp/use) | Storage and lost access to ramp were consequential/incidental damages caused by title uncertainty | No actual storage payments by plaintiff; ramp could have been preserved; insufficient notice to seller of time-sensitive need | Court: Plaintiff failed to show actual losses or that losses were proximately caused and reasonably certain; no recovery awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Timberlake v. Douglas County, 291 Neb. 387 (Neb. 2015) (concurrent consideration of UCC Article 2 and certificate-of-title statutes)
- Settell’s, Inc. v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 209 Neb. 26 (Neb. 1981) (measure of buyer’s damages under UCC § 2-714)
- Stauffer v. Benson, 288 Neb. 683 (Neb. 2014) (interpretation of UCC warranty principles)
- Alford v. Neal, 229 Neb. 67 (Neb. 1988) (certificate of title as prima facie evidence of ownership)