Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Conry

State: Illinois

Court: 3rd District Appellate

Docket No: 3-00-0252, 0253 cons. Rel

Case Date: 05/04/2001

May 4, 2001

No. 3--00--0252
(Consolidated with No. 3--00--0253)

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 2001

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

DAYNA CONRY

and

MARY PLOTTS,

Defendants-Appellees.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appeal from the Circuit Court
of the 10th Judicial Circuit,
Tazewell County, Illinois

No. 99--LM--409, 99--LM--408

Honorable
J. Peter Ault,
Judge, Presiding

JUSTICE BRESLIN delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendants, Dayna Conry and Mary Plotts, failed to makepayments for consumer goods that they purchased from Sears,Roebuck and Company (Sears) on Sears credit card accounts. Afterthe defendants' debts were discharged in bankruptcy, Sears suedto take possession of its collateral, asserting that it had apurchase money security interest in the merchandise. 810 ILCS5/9--107 (West 1998). The trial court ruled Sears had failed toprove that the defendants entered into a security agreement withSears. Sears' motion to reconsider was denied. We reverse andhold that a security interest was adequately proven by Sears whenit produced the defendants' signed credit card sales receiptsincorporating a Sears security agreement by reference and statingthat the buyers granted Sears a security interest in themerchandise.

BACKGROUND

During 1998, the defendants purchased various consumer goodsfrom Sears on Sears credit card accounts. After the defendantsfailed to make payments on their accounts, Sears sued to replevythe goods from the defendants in separate cases. The defendantseach filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy (11 U.S.C.