The Court denied the entry of a mandatory injunction requiring the Defendant to deliver the title to a motor vehicle to a third party purchaser.
The Court observed that “'[m]andatory injunctions are disfavored as an interlocutory remedy’ because, rather than maintaining the status quo (as is the case when a prohibitory injunction issues), a mandatory injunction effectively alters it."
The Court held that such an injunction is appropriate where a plaintiff provides proof of “serious irreparable injury to the [plaintiff] if the injunction is not granted, no substantial injury to the [defendant] if the injunction is granted, and predictably good chances of success on the [merits].”
The injunction requested by the Plaintiff was denied for several reasons, including because Plaintiff’s claimed injuries would be compensable by money damages and there was therefore no irreparable harm.
In a Uniform Commercial Code sidelight, the Court discussed the concepts of attachment, perfection, and priority, and held that Defendant might have a valid purchase money security interest under the UCC even though it had not perfected its claimed security interest. The Court held "the Court has found no case (and Plaintiff cites none) holding that the failure to perfect a security interest deprives a secured creditor of its remedies against the debtor for default, including its right to demand possession of proceeds in the possession of the debtor following the unlawful sale of the creditor’s collateral."