In Breckenridge v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., No. 18-10787, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70049, at *11-12 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 25, 2019), Judge Hood granted summary judgment to an automobile finance company as to a debtor’s claim that the passage of time from repossession to sale violated the UCC.

Nissan states that Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence that the Altima was not sold in a commercially reasonable time period or that the Altima was damaged at the auction. Nissan asserts that, because there was an issue regarding the Altima’s mileage, Nissan could not obtain an accurate title from the Michigan Secretary of State (which was necessary to sell the Altima) until November 22, 2017. Nissan further asserts that Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence that: (1) the Altima was damaged in any way; (2) Plaintiff was harmed in any manner as a result of the delay in selling the Altima; or (3) the delay in selling the Altima (or any alleged damage to the Altima) negatively impacted the price for which the Altima was sold.  The Court agrees. Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence that the 10 months that transpired between repossession of the Altima and Nissan’s sale of the Altima resulted in the sales price of the Altima being lower than it would have been if sold earlier. Accordingly, the Court grants Nissan’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ [*12]  Michigan UCC claim and dismisses Plaintiffs’ cause of action.  Nissan also contends it is entitled to summary judgment on its breach of contract Counterclaim. Nissan states it is undisputed that Plaintiffs defaulted under the Contract, which gave Nissan the right to repossess the Altima and sell it in a commercially reasonable manner. Nissan asserts that it is entitled to $20,078.96, which is the unpaid balance due and owing under the Contract ($27,327.35), plus other expenses including delinquency, repossession and auction fees ($2,177.50), less the $9,500.00 received as proceeds from the sale of the Altima. Plaintiffs did not respond to Nissan’s argument that Nissan is entitled to summary judgment on the breach of contract Counterclaim.