USA Foreclosure Wiki

Bank of America v. J. & S. Auto Repairs (Ariz. 1985)

4 min read

Bank of America v. J. & S. Auto Repairs (1985)

Citation: 143 Ariz. 416, 694 P.2d 246 (approving in part and vacating in part 143 Ariz. 447, 694 P.2d 277 (App. 1984)) · Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Gordon, V.C.J.) · Decided: January 16, 1985

Source note (2026-10-18):

  • Links on this page to https://static.case.law/ariz/143/cases/0416-01.json are an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.

Facts

Bank of America held a purchase-money lien on a 1977 Plymouth Voyager van under a conditional sales contract. After a fire, the buyer had the van towed to J. & S. Auto Repairs and asked for a repair estimate; neither he nor the bank authorized repair or storage. The buyer disappeared. A title search through a title service returned a Motor Vehicle Division report showing no liens, so the shop’s owner treated the van as abandoned, applied for a bonded title, and rebuilt the van. MVD then disclosed the bank’s lien. The bank replevied the van; the shop counterclaimed for USD 4,400 in repairs on an unjust-enrichment theory. The trial court gave the bank the van and the shop USD 3,000.

Holding

The Supreme Court approved the Court of Appeals’ statutory analysis of A.R.S. § 33-1022 and former § 44-3135 (UCC accessions, not a vehicle-title statute): the shop had no lien or security interest enforceable against the bank. The owner had not agreed to the repairs and the recorded lender had not knowingly consented. On restitution, a mistaken improver whose chattel is replevied, without bonding to retain it, cannot recover services or enhanced value under Restatement § 42(2); detachable parts removable without damage may support restitution or removal under § 39. The court remanded the removable-parts issue and overruled Valley Chevrolet to the extent inconsistent. This was replevin/restitution, not confirmation of a completed lien auction.

Reasoning

The recorded purchase-money lien had priority; § 33-1022 does not impair a lien of record unless the work was furnished with the record lienor’s knowledge and consent (now A.R.S. § 33-1022(B)). An erroneous “no lien” report and a bonded-title application did not cut off the bank’s recorded interest.

Practical impact

  • Buyers: the shop only applied for bonded title; none issued. This case does not invalidate a completed, compliant modern A.R.S. § 28-4842 abandoned-vehicle transfer. Its actual holding concerns the unauthorized repair claim against the bank, not every bonded-title or abandoned-vehicle buyer. Current title-record notice is a separate rule under § 28-2133.
  • Lienholders: replevin recovers the vehicle without paying for unauthorized improvements, apart from removable parts.
  • Repair shops: obtain owner agreement and, for financed vehicles, lienholder consent before work if the lien is to prime the lender.

Good-law status

The full opinion was independently reread on 2026-10-17. Former § 44-3135 concerned accessions; the modern accessions provision is § 47-9335, not Title 28’s replacement of a supposed vehicle-lien statute. Current § 33-1022(A)–(B) still distinguishes agreed charges and record-lender consent. This is a bounded text comparison, not comprehensive subsequent-treatment clearance; needs_verification remains for that task. Do not treat the restitution remand as an award for all parts or labor.

Applies in →

arizona · see towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales, motor-vehicles, ucc-article-9-dispositions

Sources

This page provides general legal information, not legal advice. Verify the holding and its current treatment against the primary source and consult a licensed Arizona attorney before acting. Last verified: 2026-10-17.

Graph View

Backlinks