USA Foreclosure Wiki

Williams v. American Honda Finance Corp. (2018)

4 min read

Williams v. American Honda Finance Corp. (2018)

Citation: No. 16-1275 (1st Cir. Oct. 24, 2018) (Kayatta, J., for a panel of Torruella, Thompson and Kayatta, JJ.); certification order No. 16-1275 (1st Cir. June 8, 2017) (per curiam). The First Circuit cites the Supreme Judicial Court’s answers as Williams v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 98 N.E.3d 169 (Mass. 2018); · Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, on appeal from the District of Massachusetts · Decided: October 24, 2018.

The two First Circuit opinions were re-read in full from the court’s site on 2026-10-18. The SJC opinion (479 Mass. 656 (2018)) was not re-retrieved: the unofficial archive used on 2026-10-17 disallows automated access in its robots.txt. Statements of the SJC’s answers below are therefore taken from the First Circuit’s 2018 opinion.

Facts

Rachel Williams bought a 2007 Honda Accord under a retail installment sale contract assigned to American Honda Finance. After she defaulted, Honda repossessed the car and sent a post-repossession notice of its intent to sell at auction, stating that “[t]he money received from the sale (after paying our costs) will reduce the amount you owe.” The car sold at auction for USD 8,900. Honda’s post-sale notice computed the deficiency as the loan balance plus costs minus the auction price. Williams sued under G.L. c. 106, §§ 9-614 and 9-616 and c. 93A, arguing that the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act, G.L. c. 255B, § 20B, measures the deficiency by the car’s fair market value, not the auction price. The District Court granted summary judgment to Honda because the notices tracked the UCC 9-614(3) safe-harbor form.

Holding

  • The First Circuit certified three questions to the SJC (2017 per curiam). As the 2018 opinion reports, the SJC answered that “fair market value” under c. 255B, § 20B is not “fair market retail value” — “the Legislature did not dictate the creditor’s market choice in the first instance” — though in disputed cases a rebuttable presumption treats estimated retail-market value as fair market value; and that post-repossession and post-sale notices of the type Honda sent must “expressly describe the deficiency as the difference between the amount owed on the loan and the fair market value of the vehicle.”
  • Applying those answers, the First Circuit held that Honda’s notices, which described the deficiency by reference to sale proceeds, “plainly do not provide this necessary express description” and so violated c. 106, §§ 9-614 and 9-616. Use of the UCC safe-harbor language “is inadequate under Massachusetts law.” The court reversed the compliance ruling, vacated dismissal of the UCC and c. 93A claims, and otherwise affirmed, leaving in place the district court’s rejection of Williams’s unauthenticated fair-market-value evidence.

Reasoning

Section 20B(d) displaces Article 9 where they conflict, and § 20B(e) measures a consumer’s deficiency against fair market value. A notice that tells the consumer the auction price controls therefore misstates the consumer’s liability, even if it copies the uniform safe-harbor form. Honda’s due-process objection to applying the SJC’s reading to earlier notices was waived because it was raised for the first time after certification.

Practical impact

  • Lenders and repossession buyers: in Massachusetts consumer motor-vehicle transactions over USD 2,000, the deficiency is measured against fair market value under c. 255B, § 20B, and the uniform 9-614 form notice is not sufficient. Defective notices expose the lender to statutory UCC damages and c. 93A claims; they do not by themselves undo the auction buyer’s title, which rests on c. 106, § 9-617(b) good-faith transferee protection.
  • Debtors: the debtor may contest the deficiency by proving fair market value; here the claim on the sale price failed only because the valuation exhibit was not authenticated.

Good-law status

Both First Circuit opinions verified in full; the SJC opinion was not re-read in this review; comprehensive later treatment and current-good-law certification remain needs_verification. As the First Circuit reports, the SJC rejected a mandatory retail-value measure but recognized a rebuttable presumption that estimated retail-market value is fair market value in disputed cases. The First Circuit rejected the lender’s retroactivity/due-process argument as waived, not on the merits.

Applies in →

massachusetts · ucc-article-9-dispositions · motor-vehicles

Sources

Disclaimer. This page is legal information, not legal advice. It summarizes a court decision that may have been limited or distinguished by later authority. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Read the full opinion and consult a licensed attorney before acting.

Graph View

Backlinks