## Facts

- Arnold R. Clark financed a tractor-trailer rig under a security agreement; the secured interest was held by Associates Commercial Corp. (Associates).
- After Clark defaulted, Associates arranged a self-help repossession of the rig in Knoxville, Tennessee.
- Associates hired a repossession intermediary, who subcontracted to Clark Investigation & Recovery, Inc.; its employees, including Randall Wayne Lett, conducted the physical repossession.
- Clark alleged the repossession involved force or confrontation amounting to a breach of the peace and causing personal and property harm.
- Clark sued Associates asserting: violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-503 (self-help repossession only if without breach of the peace), conversion, battery, breach of contract, outrage, and invasion of privacy.
- Associates filed third-party claims seeking indemnity from the repossession actors for any liability to Clark.
- The court considered Clark’s motion for partial summary judgment and Associates’ motion for complete or partial summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the record permitted summary judgment on the claim that the repossession violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-503’s “no breach of the peace” condition.
2. Whether disputed facts about the manner of repossession foreclosed summary judgment on related tort and contract claims (conversion, battery, outrage, invasion of privacy, breach of contract).
3. Whether Associates could obtain summary judgment based on the contention that repossession actors were independent contractors rather than Associates’ agents.

## Decision

- The court denied complete summary judgment for either party on the central repossession-liability disputes.
- The court held that whether a breach of the peace occurred during the repossession presented fact questions not suitable for resolution on summary judgment on the existing record.
- The court declined to remove the case from trial where liability depended on competing factual accounts of confrontation, force, and related conduct.
- The court granted limited partial summary judgment only to the extent particular theories or components were not supported under the Rule 56 record, while leaving the core statutory and tort claims for trial.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the nonmovant must produce specific facts showing a triable issue.
- Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-503, a secured party may repossess without judicial process only if it can be done without breach of the peace.
- Whether repossession conduct constitutes a breach of the peace commonly depends on fact-intensive considerations (including confrontation, threats, force, and risk of injury) and is often for the factfinder when the evidence conflicts.
- A secured party may face liability for wrongful repossession based on acts carried out on its behalf; when agency or scope-of-authority facts are disputed, summary judgment is generally improper.
- When a breach-of-peace theory is disputed, related claims such as conversion, battery, emotional-distress torts, invasion of privacy, and contract-based theories tied to lawful repossession obligations may likewise present triable issues.

## Conclusion

The court largely refused to dispose of the case at summary judgment because the parties offered competing accounts of the repossession, making the existence of a breach of the peace under Tennessee’s self-help repossession statute—and related tort and contract liability—questions for trial rather than judicial resolution on a paper record.


Clark v. Assocs. Com. Corp., 877 F. Supp. 1439 (D. Kan. 1994)