The opinion
GOODMAN, C.J.,
dissenting:
¶ 1 I respectfully dissent. Mangum Auto Sales presented a ten-day payoff statement to Bryan’s Car Comer, Inc., on October 6, 2011, in the amount of $8,865.44. It is undisputed that more than ten days elapsed without tender of the amount specified. As a result, Bryan’s had a duty to make further inquiry to ascertain a new payoff amount. Although the testimony at trial was conflicting, the record provides Bryan’s contacted Mangum on October 21, 2011, and was told the 10-day payoff amount was actually $10,720.40. 1 1 The parties subsequently spoke on or about October 25, 2011, to discuss the discrepancy between the two payoff amounts and to attempt to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. Contrary to the majority’s assertion, therefore, it is undisputed Bryan’s knew the correct payoff amount was $10,720.40 prior to tendering the $8,865.44 to *991 Mangum on October 28, 2011. Accordingly, Bryan did not tender to Mangum “a sum not less than the amount then due on a specified debt or obligation.” See Davidson v. Rogers, 1970 OK 114, ¶ 15 , 471 P.2d 455 . I would therefore reverse the trial court’s order requiring release of Mangum’s security interest in the vehicle and the subsequent award of a prevailing party attorney’s fee to Bryan.
. The record alternatively provides $ 10,720.44.