Cappo Management V, Inc. v. Britt (2011)
Court: Supreme Court of Virginia · Decided: June 9, 2011 · Record: 100797 · Reported: 282 Va. 33, 711 S.E.2d 209 · Trading name: Victory Nissan of Chesapeake.
Facts
Britt traded in a car, paid USD 1,500 and signed sale/credit documents. Financing fell through; the dealer cancelled, repossessed and disposed of the car without advance disposition notice. The trial court awarded USD 15,000 in statutory damages. Official opinion, pp. 1–3.
Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed. The transaction created a security interest and Britt was an Article 9 debtor; the dealer’s cancellation right did not remove disposition notice obligations. Opinion, pp. 4–9.
Reasoning
Read together, the documents made a conditional sale, with financing approval a condition subsequent. Contractual repossession rights did not eliminate the debtor’s retained interests or the secured party’s enforcement duties. Opinion, pp. 4–8.
Practical impact
Check the actual agreements and notices when evaluating a repossession-sale file. Calling a transaction a bailment does not decide its legal character. The opinion affirms damages against the dealer; it does not adjudicate the later buyer’s title. Opinion.
Good-law status
Subsequent appellate history and current precedential status are
needs_verification; no comprehensive citator review was completed. The full
official opinion was captured again from the court’s site on October 18, 2026; the
reporter citation is taken from the later official opinions below. Retrieved later official opinions in
Online Resources Corp. v. Lawlor (January 10, 2013), Record 120208, and
Surgi-Center of Central Virginia v. McLane Company, Inc. (November 24, 2015),
unpublished, Record 0484-15-2,
cite Cappo on contract interpretation/review. These citations do not establish
comprehensive later treatment of its Article 9 holding or purchaser-title effects.
Lawlor, p. 28;
Surgi-Center, p. 5.
Current Virginia § 8.9A-612 retains its ten-day reasonable-
notice provision without the uniform nonconsumer-only language. Read consumer
notice contents in § 8.9A-614 as well. Current enacted
text.
Applies in →
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify current statutes and later decisions before applying this opinion.