Beneficial Finance Co. v. Schroeder

737 P.2d 52, 12 Kan. App. 2d 150, 1987 Kan. App. LEXIS 1022
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas
DecidedMay 14, 1987
Docket59,449
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 737 P.2d 52 (Beneficial Finance Co. v. Schroeder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beneficial Finance Co. v. Schroeder, 737 P.2d 52, 12 Kan. App. 2d 150, 1987 Kan. App. LEXIS 1022 (kanctapp 1987).

Opinion

Briscoe, J.:

This appeal involves a priority dispute among three parties claiming a security interest in a mobile home.

The parties do not dispute the following facts: Louise and James Schroeder purchased a mobile home in 1977. The purchase was financed by a retail sales contract which was assigned to appellant, Hutchinson National Bank (Hutch National). Hutch National noted its security interest on the mobile home’s certificate of title. Shortly thereafter, the Schroeders transported the mobile home to their property in Grinnell, Kansas, placed it on a concrete block foundation, and removed the wheels and axles. In 1981, the Schroeders mortgaged the Grinnell real estate to Beneficial Finance Company (Beneficial). Beneficial noted its mortgage on the mobile home’s certificate of title, and also filed a financing statement with the register of deeds. In 1984, Farmers and Merchants Bank of Hill City (Farmers and Merchants) took a *151 second mortgage on the Schroeders’ Grinnell real estate. To perfect its security interest, Farmers and Merchants simply filed a financing statement with the register of deeds. In 1985, Beneficial foreclosed on the Schroeders’ property and the issue of security interest priority in the mobile home arose. The trial court granted foreclosure of the mortgages and/or liens of Beneficial, Farmers and Merchants, and Hutch National, but reserved ruling on which parties’ security interest in the mobile home had priority. After considering briefs filed by the parties, the court ruled in favor of Beneficial and Farmers and Merchants, concluding the mobile home had become a fixture on the real estate which was subsequently mortgaged to Beneficial and Farmers and Merchants. Hutch National appeals.

Pursuant to K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 84-9-302(3), a security interest in a vehicle may be perfected by noting its existence on the vehicle’s certificate of title, or by mailing or delivering notice of the security interest to the Division of Motor Vehicles. K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 8-135(c)(5). Mailing or delivering notice of the security interest perfects the secured party’s interest during the period from attachment to notation on the certificate of title. At the time of the Schroeders’ purchase, a mobile home was defined as a vehicle under K.S.A. 8-126(v). Under the current statute, K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 8-126(v), the term “mobile home” is used synonymously with and means the same as “manufactured home.” Hutch National followed the statutory provisions for perfecting its security interest in the mobile home by noting its security interest on the certificate of title pursuant to K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 8-135(c)(5). Beneficial and Farmers and Merchants successfully argued to the trial court that Hutch National was also required to make a fixture filing with the register of deeds in order to retain priority over subsequently perfected security interests in the real estate upon which the mobile home was located.

According to the trial court, the Schroeders’ mobile home became a fixture pursuant to K.S.A. 84-9-313 when it was attached to the concrete block foundation. Under K.S.A. 84-9-313(1):

“(a) goods are ‘fixtures’ when affixing them to real estate so associates them with the real estate that, in the absence of any agreement or understanding with *152 his vendor as to the goods, a purchaser of the real estate with knowledge of interests of others of record, or in possession, would reasonably consider the goods to have been purchased as part of the real estate;
“(b) a ‘fixture filing’ is the filing in the office where a mortgage on the real estate would be filed or recorded of a financing statement covering goods which are or are to become fixtures and conforming to the requirements of subsection (5) of section 84-9-402.”

This statute also provides that “[a] perfected security interest in fixtures has priority over the conflicting interest of an encumbrance or owner of the real estate where . . . the security interest is perfected by a fixture filing before the interest of the encumbrancer or owner is of record.” K.S.A. 84-9-313(4)(b). Based on this statute, the trial court concluded Hutch National lost its priority by failing to make a fixture filing prior to the time either Beneficial or Farmers and Merchants recorded its security interest in the real estate with the register of deeds.

On appeal, Hutch National contends that no fixture filing was required because K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 84-9-302(3)(c) provides the exclusive methods for perfecting a security interest in a vehicle. We agree. K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 84-9-302(3)(c) provides:

“A security interest in:
“(c) a vehicle (except a vehicle held as inventory for sale) subject to a statute of this state which requires indication on a certificate of title or a duplicate thereof of such security interests in such vehicle:
“Can be perfected only by presentation, for the purpose of such registration or such filing or such indication, of the documents appropriate under any such statute to the public official appropriate under any such statute and tender of the required fee to or acceptance of the documents by such public official, or by the mailing or delivery by a dealer or secured party to the appropriate state agency of a notice of security interest as prescribed by K.S.A. 8-135 and amendments thereto. Such presentation and tender or acceptance, or mailing or delivery, shall have the same effect under this article as filing under this article, and such perfection shall have the same effect under this article as perfection by filing under this article.”

K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 8-135(c)(5) states:

“Upon sale and delivery to the purchaser of every vehicle subject to a purchase money security interest as defined in K.S.A. 84-9-107

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Morris v. Ark Valley Credit Union
536 B.R. 887 (D. Kansas, 2015)
In re Hoffman
500 B.R. 37 (D. Kansas, 2013)
Morris v. Hicks (In Re Hicks)
491 F.3d 1136 (Tenth Circuit, 2007)
Davis v. Emprise Bank (In Re Jackson)
358 B.R. 412 (D. Kansas, 2007)
Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Morris
362 B.R. 478 (Tenth Circuit, 2007)
In Re Thomas
362 B.R. 478 (Tenth Circuit, 2007)
Morris v. Intrust Bank, N.A. (In Re Anderson)
351 B.R. 752 (D. Kansas, 2006)
Rice v. Simmons First Bank of Searcy (In Re Renaud)
302 B.R. 280 (E.D. Arkansas, 2003)
Morris v. CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc.
323 F.3d 841 (Tenth Circuit, 2003)
Morris v. Citifinancial (In Re Trible)
290 B.R. 838 (D. Kansas, 2003)
Green Tree Financial Servicing Corp. v. Sutton
650 N.W.2d 228 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2002)
Prairie State Bank v. Superior Housing, Inc.
40 P.3d 336 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
737 P.2d 52, 12 Kan. App. 2d 150, 1987 Kan. App. LEXIS 1022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beneficial-finance-co-v-schroeder-kanctapp-1987.