Is “No” Three Times Good Enough to Be a “Breach of the Peace”?

Vehicle repossession is a delicate process that often involves high emotions and potential legal challenges, especially when the repossession occurs in the presence of the vehicle’s owner. One important period of time central to any repossession occurs when the actual repossession is done. Courts closely scrutinize whether a “breach of the peace” has occurred during the repossession attempt—when the tow truck and operator come to the vehicle to repossess it. Courts are tasked with balancing the rights of creditors to repossess vehicles with the need to protect individuals from overly aggressive repossession tactics.

A recent lawsuit, Gonzalez v. VJ Wood Recovery, LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54629 (US Dist EDPA 2024), raises important questions about whether a verbal objection—without any physical resistance—can be enough to constitute a breach of the peace during a vehicle repossession.

The Facts of the Lawsuit

In Gonzalez v. VJ Wood Recovery, LLC, the plaintiff, Gonzalez, encountered two tow truck operators who arrived at his residence to repossess his vehicle. During the repossession attempt, Gonzalez verbally objected by yelling “No” three times, but he did not physically interfere with the process. The repossession proceeded despite his objections, and the vehicle was taken away. Gonzalez later sued the repossession company, claiming that the repossession constituted a “breach of the peace” under Pennsylvania law, which would render the repossession illegal.

The central question in the lawsuit was whether a verbal objection alone, without any physical confrontation, could amount to a breach of the peace. The court ultimately determined that this is a factual question for the jury, meaning that it will be up to a jury to decide whether Gonzalez’s verbal objection was sufficient to constitute a breach of the peace under the specific circumstances of the lawsuit.

Breach of the Peace in Repossession Law

Under Pennsylvania law, like in many other states, a secured creditor has the right to repossess a vehicle without a court order, as long as the repossession is carried out without breaching the peace. A “breach of the peace” is not clearly defined in the Pennsylvania statute, leaving courts to interpret what actions during a repossession cross the line. The courts generally agree that a breach of the peace may occur when the repossession agent’s actions lead to a significant disturbance, but they are divided on whether verbal objections alone are enough to constitute such a breach.

In the Gonzalez lawsuit, the court adopted the majority view that a verbal objection alone may be sufficient to establish a breach of the peace. This view acknowledges that physical confrontation should not be required to sustain a claim of a breach of the peace. In other words, courts should consider the broader context of the interaction between the repossession agent and the vehicle owner, including whether the repossession caused emotional distress or public disturbance.

The Majority View vs. The Minority View

The court in Gonzalez followed the majority rule in repossession lawsuits, which holds that a verbal objection, if loud and persistent enough, may constitute a breach of the peace. This view is rooted in the principle that allowing repossession agents to ignore verbal objections would encourage confrontations to escalate, increasing the likelihood of violence. The majority view protects vehicle owners by acknowledging that they do not have to resort to physical altercations to protect their rights.

The minority view, on the other hand, contends that a breach of the peace requires more than just verbal objections and typically involves some form of physical resistance or a public altercation. Courts that follow this interpretation often argue that verbal objections alone do not rise to the level of disturbance necessary to constitute a breach of the peace.

Pennsylvania’s Approach to Vehicle Repossession

Pennsylvania courts have largely followed the majority rule in lawsuits involving vehicle repossession. In lawsuits such as Gonzalez, where the vehicle owner verbally objects to the repossession but does not engage in physical resistance, courts are generally willing to allow a jury to decide whether a breach of the peace occurred. This approach is consistent with Pennsylvania’s broader legal framework, which seeks to protect consumers from aggressive and unlawful repossession practices while still allowing creditors to recover property.

In previous Pennsylvania lawsuits, courts have found that even minor disturbances or emotional distress can be sufficient to establish a breach of the peace. For example, in lawsuits where repossession agents have caused a scene in a residential neighborhood or continued with the repossession despite clear objections from the vehicle owner, Pennsylvania courts have been willing to find that a breach of the peace occurred.

Key Legal Questions

• Is a Verbal Objection Enough? One of the key questions in Gonzalez was whether a verbal objection alone could establish a breach of the peace. The court ruled that it could, but left the ultimate decision to the jury. The reasoning behind this ruling is that a verbal objection, especially if it is loud or repeated multiple times, can create a tense or potentially hostile situation. The law should not require vehicle owners to physically resist or risk escalating the situation further in order to protect their rights. Allowing verbal objections to count as a potential breach of the peace also gives vehicle owners a safer way to express their opposition without the fear of physical harm.
• Did the Repossession Agent Have Control of the Vehicle? Another important question in the lawsuit was whether the repossession agent had gained control of the vehicle before the alleged breach of the peace occurred. If the repossession agent had already secured control of the vehicle, it would be more difficult for Gonzalez to claim that a breach of the peace occurred. However, if the breach of the peace occurred before the agent had full control of the vehicle, it could render the repossession unlawful. Again, this is a factual issue for the jury to decide.
• What Constitutes ‘Gaining Control’? Determining when a repossession agent has “gained control” of the vehicle is a nuanced question. In some lawsuits, courts have found that attaching the vehicle to a tow truck is sufficient to establish control. In other lawsuits, courts have required the vehicle to be fully removed from the property before control is considered to be established. In Gonzalez, this issue is particularly relevant because Gonzalez’s verbal objections occurred while the vehicle was still in the process of being repossessed. The jury will have to weigh the evidence to determine whether the agent had control of the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach.

Implications for Vehicle Owners and Repossession Agents

The court’s ruling in Gonzalez has significant implications for both vehicle owners and repossession agents in Pennsylvania. For vehicle owners, the ruling underscores the importance of asserting their rights during a repossession attempt, even if they do not wish to physically confront the repossession agent. A loud and clear verbal objection may be enough to halt the repossession or, at the very least, establish grounds for a lawsuit if the repossession proceeds.

For repossession agents, the lawsuit serves as a warning that ignoring verbal objections can lead to legal consequences. Repossession agents must be mindful of the fact that a simple verbal objection could constitute a breach of the peace, especially if it is repeated or accompanied by signs of emotional distress. Agents who proceed with a repossession despite such objections risk exposing themselves to liability for wrongful repossession.

Conclusion

The Gonzalez lawsuit highlights the ongoing legal debate over what constitutes a breach of the peace during a vehicle repossession. While Pennsylvania law does not require physical resistance to establish a breach of the peace, verbal objections may be enough in certain circumstances. Ultimately, each lawsuit will depend on the specific facts and whether a jury finds that the repossession agent’s actions crossed the line. For vehicle owners, this ruling offers a measure of protection, while repossession agents must tread carefully to avoid potential legal pitfalls. As courts continue to refine the definition of a breach of the peace in repossession lawsuits, both sides must remain aware of their rights and responsibilities under the law.