Appellants contend that the bank had an obligation to dispose of the collateral in a reasonable manner and apply the proceeds to the debt owed. They urge that the bank's failure to do this and its continued possession of their vehicle constitute a conversion of that vehicle. We disagree.

Once default occurred, the bank was authorized to take possession of the collateral. Code Ann. 109A-9--503. Possession of the vehicle by the bank is therefore proper under the circumstances of this case and appellants' allegation that such possession constitutes conversion is without merit. Compare Code Ann. 109A-9--505 (1). "Conversion involves the unauthorized assumption and exercise of right of ownership over personalty of another, contrary to the owner's rights." Pelletier v. Schultz, 157 Ga. App. 64, 65 (276 SE2d 118) (1981). The evidence of record affirmatively establishes as a matter of law that the bank's possession of the vehicle was authorized and not inconsistent with any rights of appellant. The grant of summary judgment on the counterclaim was therefore proper.