Page 142 - Microsoft Word - NEW 2017 Standard Program.docx

APPLICABLE STATE STATUTES - GENERAL

As you have learned from studying the C.A.R.S. National Certification Program, not every state has
®
a specific statute requiring licensure and oversight of those who offer self-help repossession services.
In those states that do have a specific statute, you will find a copy of that statute in this section (12),
®
Applicable State Statutes, of the C.A.R.S. Program.

In our endeavor to improve the C.A.R.S. National Certification Program, our staff has now added
®
State Specific Case Law and Case Law Commentary to Section 12. We believe this will further
enhance the student’s ability to better understand how the courts address and make decisions regarding
self-help litigation.

Case law is very important because, in the event of litigation, lawyers and the courts look for
previous court rulings within a specific profession and jurisdiction, and even outside their
jurisdiction, as a way to assist them in reaching a final ruling.

Most all states have established Case law, which courts refer to when litigating alleged violations of
law, including alleged violations of the self-help repossession process. Since the C.A.R.S. ® Pr og r am is
designed for those who offer self-help repossession services we felt that case law relating to the
®
self-help repossession process should be made a part of the C.A.R.S. Program.

In our commentary, we will also include additional cases related to the self-help repossession process,
as well as excerpts from sworn depositions and expert opinions in those cases. As a courtesy, we will
not name plaintiffs or defendants in our commentary. However, in sworn depositions when a response
is given to a question by the questioning attorney we will indicate whether it is the plaintiff or defendant
who is answering.

Repossession Case Law Commentary
For those states with a specific state law regulating the licensure and activities of Recovery
Agent’s we have included that law as well as that state’s established predominate repossession
case law.

Case law, in layman’s terms, is derived from a collection of litigated cases that form a specific body
of law addressing like situations that courts have ruled on in the past. Since we are addressing self-
help repossession, and how courts have ruled on related litigation, our interest lies in case law as it
applies to this process. Within that collection of cases is established the “prevailing,” or
“predominant,” case(s) that courts consider in making a ruling in subsequent litigation. It is important
to note that courts may look outside their jurisdictions in rendering decisions.

In virtually all prevailing case law regarding self-help repossession, the courts address Breach of the
Peace as the basis for their decisions. But they also say there is no hard and fast definition of the term
Breach of the Peace. That’s because the lawyers, judges and law scholars who developed the Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC) intended the various courts to have the authority to determine what they
consider to be a Breach of the Peace. It is, however, made clear in the UCC, Section 9-609, that self-
help repossession must be accomplished “without a Breach of the Peace.”
1