SC128363
ATOMIC v. KIM
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is rejected for the following reasons:
1. Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence that would allow it to re-possess the container homes. Ordinarily, repossession of goods sold would require that the seller retain a security interest in the goods. There is nothing in the invoices indicating that Plaintiff could repossess the container homes.
Plaintiff’s proposed judgment essentially asks for a levy order but without any underlying judgment or right to repossession.
2. Plaintiff also fails to account for the $26,000 Defendant already paid on the 20 sq ft container. Defendant has an equity interest in the 20 sq ft container. The repossession of the 20 sq ft container home, without any reimbursement of the $26,000 Defendant already paid, would unjustly enrich Plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff submits evidence in support of both a damages claim and possession. The judgment only seeks judgment for possession of the containe
Hearing Date
May 29, 2018
Type
Othr Breach Contr/Warr-not Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SC128363
ATOMIC v. KIM
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is rejected for the following reasons:
1. Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence that would allow it to re-possess the container homes. Ordinarily, repossession of goods sold would require that the seller retain a security interest in the goods. There is nothing in the invoices indicating that Plaintiff could repossess the container homes.
Plaintiff’s proposed judgment essentially asks for a levy order but without any underlying judgment or right to repossession.
2. Plaintiff also fails to account for the $26,000 Defendant already paid on the 20 sq ft container. Defendant has an equity interest in the 20 sq ft container. The repossession of the 20 sq ft container home, without any reimbursement of the $26,000 Defendant already paid, would unjustly enrich Plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff submits evidence in support of both a damages claim and possession. The judgment only seeks judgment for possession of the containe