Background
Harold Celley financed a vehicle purchase in February 2021, agreeing to make fifty-four monthly payments of $431.48. The contract was later assigned to Credit Acceptance Corporation. Celley stopped making payments in April 2024, leaving an unpaid balance of $6,496.43. Credit Acceptance filed this collection action in September 2025.
Credit Acceptance moved for summary judgment and submitted the financing agreement, a notice that the account was delinquent, and a notice of acceleration. Celley did not dispute entering the agreement or failing to make the required payments. He asserted, however, that the vehicle had been in an accident, was towed and later sold, and that he had not received required notices concerning abandonment or sale. He supported those assertions with no record citations, affidavits, or documentary evidence. The civil division entered judgment for Credit Acceptance for $6,496.43 plus interest and costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. Applying the summary-judgment standard de novo, the Court explained that a party opposing summary judgment must identify specific record-supported facts establishing a genuine issue for trial. Celley’s unsupported allegations did not satisfy that requirement.
The Court rejected Celley’s argument that factual disputes existed over compliance with Article 9 notice and disposition requirements. The record did not show that Credit Acceptance possessed the vehicle, initiated abandonment proceedings, or participated in an abandonment sale. By contrast, the lender’s supported and undisputed facts established Celley’s default and showed that it sent him an account notice and a notice of acceleration. Credit Acceptance was therefore entitled to judgment for the loan’s remaining balance.
Key Takeaways
- A party opposing summary judgment must support asserted factual disputes with citations to evidence in the record.
- Article 9 arguments concerning disposition of collateral did not defeat judgment where the borrower produced no evidence that the lender possessed or disposed of the vehicle.
- Undisputed evidence of the loan, default, outstanding balance, and notices entitled the lender to recover the remaining balance.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that allegations about repossession, abandonment, or disposition of collateral cannot avert summary judgment without admissible evidence connecting the creditor to those events. A borrower invoking Article 9’s protections must develop a record showing that the provisions governing a secured party’s disposition of collateral actually apply.
The entry order was issued by a three-justice panel and expressly states that such decisions are not precedent before any tribunal.