Cash Register Systems, Inc. v. Munsey Corp. (In Re Munsey Corp.)
Opinion
OPINION
The plaintiff, Cash Register Systems, Inc. [hereinafter referred to as CRS], seeks relief from the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362 (1979) 1 in order to reclaim property of the debtor in possession. For reasons hereinafter given, we conclude CRS is not entitled to a modification of the stay. 2
In August, 1978, CRS sold an electronic cash register system to the debtor. 3 The parties executed a security agreement which authorized the filing of a financing statement necessary to perfect CRS’s security interest in the cash register system as required by state law. 4 However, CRS did not file the financing statement until September 30,1980, approximately two months after the original petition in bankruptcy had been filed. 5 CRS alleges that the debt- or is in default on its payments and requests relief from the automatic stay to pursue its remedies under state law. Debt- or opposes this request and seeks an order directing CRS to remove its financing statement from the public record.
The issue presented for our decision is whether CRS, the holder of an unperfect-ed security interest as of the date of the filing of this Chapter 11 case, is entitled to relief from the automatic stay.
CRS alleges that it lacks adequate protection of an interest in property presently in the possession of the debtor. 6 We need not *866 reach the question of adequate protection, however, as we conclude that CRS has not shown it has an interest in property requiring protection. We conclude that the failure of CRS to perfect its security interest before the commencement of this case renders its security interest subordinate to the interest of the debtor.
*865 (a) General Rule. — A financing statement must be filed to perfect all security interests except the following....
*866 To determine the effect of non-perfection, we must initially look to Pennsylvania law. Under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code as codified in Pennsylvania, an unperfected security interest is subordinate to the claim of a subsequent intervening lien creditor. 13 Pa.Const.Stat.Ann. § 9301(a)(2) (Purdon).' In its brief CRS contends that the question of perfection is irrelevant, because no subsequent lien creditor exists.
This argument must fail because of the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 544(a) (1979) and 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a) (1979). 7 Section 544(a)(1) grants to the trustee the status of a hypothetical lien creditor who is deemed to have perfected his interest as of the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. In a Chapter 11 case, such as this, where no trustee has been appointed, Section 1107(a) grants to the debtor in possession certain of the trustee’s rights and powers, including the status of hypothetical lien creditor under Section 544(a)(1). Here, debtor asserts its status as hypothetical lien creditor so as to subordinate the claim of CRS.
The debtor argues that CRS’ act of filing the financing statement subsequent to the filing of the petition constitutes an act to enforce or perfect a lien on property of the debtor, and is thus in violation of the automatic stay provisions of Section 362(a)(5). 8 Consequently, the debtor prays for an order directing that CRS remove its financing statement from the public record.
There can be no question that the act of filing the financing statement was an act to perfect a lien against property of the debt- or, and thus a violation of the automatic stay. 9 Since we conclude that the filing of the financing statement is a nullity, we cannot allow CRS to benefit from the continued presence of that document in the public record. 10 Thus, we direct CRS to remove the financing statement from the public record forthwith.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
10 B.R. 864 (Cash Register Systems, Inc. v. Munsey Corp. (In Re Munsey Corp.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.