6. Papers purporting to represent bills of sale were made out indicating an alleged sale of individual vehicles from Oatess Motors to Everglades.
10. Many vehicles involved in this case were actually sold and delivered to customers in Erie, Pa. prior to the time a Florida title was applied for.
12. The purported sales to Everglades were not completed in good faith good faith being defined as honesty in fact.
19. Plaintiff never conducted a physical verification audit thereafter simply because it never insisted on its right to do so.
20. The Security Agreement between plaintiff and Everglades specifically gave plaintiff the right to enter upon the premises of Everglades to conduct such a physical verification audit and further gave the plaintiff the right to inspect the books and records of Everglades. Despite this contractual provision, the plaintiff never enforced its rights.
21. Oatess' reason for refusing to allow the audit to be performed was not a reasonable one and plaintiff was negligent in refusing or failing to conduct such an audit.
23. Despite Oatess' refusal to permit the audits and his failure, after January, 1975, to deliver monthly financial statements to the plaintiff as demanded by the plaintiff in January, 1975, plaintiff continued to loan more money to Everglades and plaintiff continued to extend the maturity dates of various Everglades loans as they became due. The last extension of credit on additional motor vehicles was in November 1975. The maturity dates on the loans for various vehicles were extended in April, June and October, 1975.
27. The plaintiff was advised in June of 1974 by the Florida Division of Motor Vehicles that Everglades had used duplicate MSO's to procure Florida titles. Plaintiff did nothing about this other than to procure from Pete Oatess an Affidavit to the effect that the original MSO had been lost. Plaintiff did not obtain an Affidavit from Pete Oatess that the original MSO had not been used to title a car in another jurisdiction even though such an affidavit was required by the Florida Division of Motor Vehicles.
32. At no time was Security Peoples Trust Company aware that duplicate MSO's or original MSO's were being used for the purpose of procuring Certificates of Title in two separate states nor did Security Peoples clothe Everglades with the indicia of title.
33. There is no evidence that Security Peoples ever misled the plaintiff by any misrepresentation or misstatement.
34. There is no evidence that plaintiff ever took any action or failed to take any action, to its detriment, based on its reliance on any statement or representation or silence of any agent, officer or employee of Security Peoples.
35. There is no evidence that any officer, director, employee or agent of Security Peoples knew or should have known that Oatess, Oatess Motors or Everglades were perpetrating a fraud by using fictitious Florida titles as collateral for loans from the plaintiff and other Florida lending institutions.
36. No officer, director, agent or employee of Security Peoples had notice of facts sufficient to put them or it on notice that motor vehicles were being sold on paper by Oatess Motors to Everglades while being physically retained in Erie for sale to retail customers.
37. John Britton had no actual knowledge whatsoever of the fraud being perpetrated by Pete Oatess.
40. Security Peoples at no time, either by its agreement or otherwise, authorized the fictitious sale of vehicles to Everglades with the physical possession to be retained by Oatess Motors in Erie.
41. At all relevant times the plaintiff knew that Security Peoples did in fact loan money to Oatess Motors to cover its floor plan inventory and knew that Security Peoples had a security interest in the new car inventory of Oatess Motors.
42. There is no evidence in this record that indicates that the proceeds received by either Oatess Motors or Everglades from the sale of the vehicles which are the subject of this suit were paid over to Security Peoples except for those vehicles sold after March 4, 1976, by Security Peoples itself.
43. There is not sufficient evidence in this record to permit plaintiff to trace the proceeds from the sale of the vehicles which were sold prior to March 4, 1976 into Security Peoples Trust. Hence, plaintiff has no security interest in any such proceeds with the modification save as to certain vehicles found in Oatess' lots in Erie.
44. Plaintiff has no perfected security interest in the motor vehicles which were on the Oatess Motors lot as of March 4, 1976.