Agrico Chemical Co. v. E. K. Painting, Inc.
This text of 417 So. 2d 37 (Agrico Chemical Co. v. E. K. Painting, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Intervenor, Clyde E. Hodges, appealed from the judgment ranking his claim inferi- or to those of two other intervenors.
The issue is the validity of an assignment of accounts receivable under the provisions of La.R.S. 9:3101, et seq.
[38]*38We affirm.
E. K. Painting, Inc., had done some work for Agrico Chemical Company. Because of conflicting claims, Agrico paid $63,300.29 into the registry of the court, making E. K. Painting, Inc. and Eli Kline, a stockholder of E. K. Painting, Inc., defendants.
Louisiana National Bank intervened seeking all the deposits on the basis of an assignment of accounts receivable. Two judgment creditors seized E. K.’s interests. By stipulation, Louisiana National Bank was awarded the amount not claimed by the judgment creditors; this would be subject to further proceedings. Clyde E. Hodges purchased the remaining interest of Louisiana National Bank and was substituted as an intervenor.
Hodges’ claim was based on the following. On December 4, 1978, E. K. Painting, Inc., signed a promissory note to Louisiana National Bank for $100,000.00. On August 7, 1979 it signed a statement of assignment of accounts receivable as required under La.R.S. 9:3103 and an assignment of accounts receivable, which assigned, among others, the account with Agrico. The statement of assignment of accounts receivable was recorded in the Parishes of Iberville, Plaquemines and St. James on August 10, and in Ascension Parish on August 21, 1979.
Relying on Air Compressors, Inc. v. Big Chief Construction Company, Inc., 367 So.2d 413 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1978), writ denied 369 So.2d 465 (1979), the trial court held that the judgment creditors1 were entitled to the amounts of their claims, because the assignment was made prior to the recording of the statement of accounts receivable.
Appellant urges us to reverse our holding in the Air Compressor, Inc. case pointing to the words “having undertaken the acceptance of”, “has pledged” and “has assigned” of La.R.S. 9:31032 as indicating that recor-dation of the statement of accounts receivable does not have to be made prior to the assignment for the latter’s validity.
We decline to reverse ourselves. The use of the above words seem to support appellant’s position. It is also true that the Supreme Court in refusing a writ was crit[39]*39ical of the rationale and reasoning assigned without being specific.3
However, we remain of the same mind. La.R.S. 9:3104 provides that the statement becomes effective upon filing and that filing constitutes public notice of an assignment made during the effective period of the statement. La.R.S. 9:3105 speaks of the assignment within the effective period of a statement of assignment of accounts receivable.
La.R.S. 9:3102 provides for the priority given to the assignment when given within the effective period of a statement of assignment made and filed for record.4
For these reasons, the judgment is affirmed at appellant’s costs.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
417 So. 2d 37, 1982 La. App. LEXIS 7624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agrico-chemical-co-v-e-k-painting-inc-lactapp-1982.