WPC 8+^ "ͻÁ"af$ajG[ߖb !U\{ gwk9i0yOy#u[ (Gl#_HHC3D if&VooS-U5]zᘕIXmzQr[9II4g\GI FhF>8xA곇D51>[xDn$-Pi7;wl&mD TjUDIP FJx\'A&ްT:0j-60IB-cSv죍c5)I~| ]2 ͦLw>;4}^r}6'm֕|X HNm܌e Kfɓ> .N8ٹ,mrb%Rwg3[]<;ң*NZZ;ڐL}qd#!xUN % 0U< w 4   - 08 0  2 mR R wi i N @ U:"^ \\\\\\\\\\ Bhhhh 0D 0 D5 AQ 0 0DHP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(7$  7XXdXXd7  Xd|XXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT RomantpO'XX33|x ##XXd#((3$ 7!  8!XXdd8  X XXX   `   0     $  XcXXX `   1     affdinpartforthepropositioncited;revdinpartonothergrounds,  175F.3d640(8thCir.1999).U m  $  XcXXX `   2    ݀Partofthedownpaymentforthepurchaseofthevehicleisthe nettradein  whichisthedifferencebetweenthevalueofthevehicleandthebalancedueonthe  financecontract. 6 b "  X XXX  _XXXX 8XX   Ad FILEDXX8  October26,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,cAZ"Arial Regular7nZ'L  d(#$  0  (3 $ 7!  8!XXdd8  X XXX  )!dxdxabZc[C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3 $ 7!  8!XXdd8  X XXX  ($$   1  7!  8!XXdd8  X XXX  _TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'Tv`[@0,j:`  `@E` 8ttxP,  v_@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATNASHVILLE `  ______________________________________________ MAHMOUDALDURIDI,HOLLYJ.  ENOCH,WILLIAMJ.FALCONE,TONYAD.FEURY,CARMELJOHNSON,MELISSAJOHNSON,SANNYUOBARD,NATHANK.SMITH,TONYAM.SMITHandRUTHWILLEY,     ` Plaintiffs, CARMELJOHNSON,MELISSA  JOHNSON,SANNYUOBARDandRUTHWILLEY,    ` PlaintiffsAppellants, `     h      p DavidsonChanceryNo.98611IIVs. `     h      p C.A.No.01A019901CH00063   COMMUNITYTRUSTBANK,N.A.,  FIFTHTHIRDBANK,HYUNDAIMOTORFINANCECOMPANY,INC.,andNATIONSBANKOFTEXAS,N.A.,  ` Defendants,   HYUNDAIMOTORFINANCE ! COMPANY,INC.andNATIONSBANKOFTEXAS,N.A.,  #"  ` DefendantsAppellees.____________________________________________________________________________@( DISSENT  )$%% ____________________________________________________________________________ CRAWFORD,J.  ,&((   ` Imustrespectfullydissentfromthemajorityopinion.Iagreewiththemajoritysstatementoffacts.Ialsoagreethatthepivotalissueinthiscasecentersonthelimitsof16C.F.R.433.2(1976),theFTCHolderRule,andtheHolderruleshouldbeinterpretedtoallowtheconsumertorecoverfromtheassigneeamountspaidunderthecontracttoboththeassigneeandtheseller. ` Idisagreewiththemajorityinconcludingthat separatingHillmansobligationtopayofftheliensfromthepurchaseofthenewvehicleswouldbe :&66    8!XXdXXd8    contrarytothespiritoftheHolderRuleandthereasonforitsadoption.Iconclude  tothecontrarythatthepurposeofFTCHolderRule,tograntaconsumerrecourse  byallowingaconsumertostoppaymentsandincertaincircumstancestoprovided  forareturnofmoniespaidontheaccount, Ford, 536N.E.2dat589; Simpson ,32   F.Supp.2dat410; HomeSavings ,733S.W.2dat136(Tex.1987),wouldnotbe   offendedbyseparatingtheinstallmentcontractfromtheobligationtopayoffthe   lien.IntheinstantcasethenoticerequiredbytheFTCHolderRuleappliesonlyto   theinstallmentcontractandnottheentiresalestransaction.   ` Thecourtin LaBarrev.CreditAcceptanceCorp. ,11F.Supp.2d1071(D.  Minn.1998) reversedinpartandaffirmedinpart ,175F.3d640,heldthatthe   plaintiffcouldnotmaintainanactionagainsttheassigneecreditorundertheHolder  Rule.In LaBarre theplaintiffstoppedmakingpaymentonaninstallmentcontract  basedonaclaimthatthedealerdidnotobtaininsurancefortheautomobileandhad  thereforebreacheditscontractualobligation.Inthatcaseasintheinstantcasethe  plaintiffdidnotallegethattheassigneecreditorhadfailedtoperform.Concerning   thenoticerequirementcontainedintheHolderRulethecourtstated: " 8 ` 8 ` !` !CAC,astheassigneeofthecontract,doesnotinheritall $  liabilitythatmayattachtothedealer,andtheCourtdoes %!! notfinditatallclearthatthereisanydealerliability &"" here.Aclaimisonlygoodagainstanassigneetothe '## extentitdiminishesorextinguishesanassigneesclaim. ($$ Itcannotbeusedtoimposeliabilityontheassignee, )%% unlesstheassigneehasassumedtheassignorsdutyof *&& performance.(citationomitted).+''    Id. at1076.  ##  1      ׀ -))  ` In BriercroftServiceCorporationv.DeLosSantos ,776S.W.2d198(Tex.Ct. /++ App.1988)thecontractwasmadeupoffourseparatedocumentsthat constituted 1-- thetransaction. Id. at204.TherequisiteFTCnoticewasprovidedontheTruthin 3// LendingDisclosure. Id. at20405.Althoughthecourtfoundnoliabilityitstated 5 11 that acreditorsderivativeliabilityforsellermisconduct,ifany,undertheFTC  Ruleislimitedtotheamountpaidbythecustomerunderthecreditcontract. Id.   at205(citing HomeSavingsv.Guerra ,733S.W.2d134,136(Tex.1987)).   ` Applyingthereasoningofthecourtsintheaforementionedcasestotheinstant   case,NationsBankshouldnotbeheldliabletotheplaintiffsfornonpaymentofthe   liensbytheHillman.TheagreementsbyHillmantopayofftheplaintiffssliens   wereseparatetransactionsandwerenotassignedtoNationsBankwhenthe   installmentcontractswereassigned.Ifindnoprovisionoftheinstallmentcontract  assignedtoNationsBankthatrequiressellertopayoffalienonthetradeinvehicle.  TheassignmentoftheinstallmentcontractstoNationsBankdidnotimposeliability  forpaymentoftheliens,asNationsBankdidnotassumethedutyofthat  performance.Rather,thedutyofpaymentoftheliensremainedwithHillman,as  didthebenefitofthecontrolofthetradedinautomobiles. ##  2      ׀Themajorityapparently  overlooksthattheassigneesliabilityforanysumisdeterminedbythecontractand  thepaymentsmadethereunder.TheWilleycontractspecificallyshowsatotaldown   paymentof$1,300.00,consistingofthenettradeinof$800.00plusacashdown " paymentof$500.00.Thus,inmyopinion,thiswouldconstitutetheamountpaid $  tothesellerunderthecontract.TheObardcontractliststhecashdownpaymentof &"" $500.00andanettradeinallowanceof$2,900.00fora totaldownpaymentof ($$ $3,400.00.Inmyopinion,thiswouldbetheamountpaidunderthecontract. *&&  ` TheassignmentoftheinstallmentcontractbyHillmantoNationsBankwas ,(( limitedtotherighttoreceiveinstallmentpaymentsfromtheplaintiffsinexchange .** forprovidingfinancingfortheautomobilespurchasedbytheplaintiffs.Thenotice 0,, provisionrequiredbytheFTCHolderRuleshouldnotbeconstruedtoengraft 2.. liabilityorrightstoanassignedinstallmentcontractnotcontractedforinthe 400 installmentcontract.Suchaninterpretationwouldplaceinthehandsofthe  consumerthevery affirmativeweaponagainsttheassigneecreditor,NationsBank,  notcontemplatedbytheFTCrule. SeePattonII *5.   ` Althoughtheappellantsareentitledtorecoveramountspaidunderthe   contracttoboththeassigneeandseller,theamountrecoverableshouldbelimitedto   theamountspaidtotheassigneeandtheamountspaidtotheselleras   downpaymentsunderthecontracts.    ` Iwouldmodifytheorderofthetrialcourtaccordingly.   `     h      p _________________________________   `     h      p W.FRANKCRAWFORD,   `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.   Ѐ