Fоllowing the sale of a repossessed automobile, Trust Company Bank initiated a deficiency action against Dorothy Lee (Lee). Lee answered, and the parties filed cross-motions for summаry judgment. Lee appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Trust Cоmpany Bank and the denial of her motion.
1. Lee alleges that the trial court erred in denying her motion for summary judgment. She contends that Trust Cоmpany Bank is not entitled to recover any deficiency because her vehicle was not sold after it was repossessed. The undisputed facts of her case as established by the record simрly do not support this contention. Therefore, this enumeration оf error is wholly without merit.
2. The second enumeration of error allеges that the trial court erred in granting Trust Company Bank’s cross-motion fоr summary judgment. Lee has challenged the commercial reasonableness of the sale of the vehicle. “ ‘ “Where the commercial reasonableness of a sale is challenged by the debtor, the party holding the security interest has the burden of proving that thе terms of the sale were commercially reasonable аnd that the resale price was the fair and reasonable value of the collateral. . . . (Cits.)” ’ ” (Emphasis omitted.)
Branch v. Charlie Pike Chevrolet-Buick
The trial court, in its April 1, 1991, order and judgment granting Trust Company Bank’s cross-motion for summary judgment, recited that “[e]vidence was presented at a hearing that the price obtained for the vehicle at the auction was within the range of commercially acceptable prices for the particular vehicle at the time of the sale.” The order further states that Lee did not present any evidence to the contrary, nor is there any in the record before this Court. Since no transcript of the hearing is available for review, we must affirm the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence. See
McClaskey v. Jiffy Lube,
Judgment affirmed.