Continental Bank v. Freehling (In Re Karl A. Neise, Inc.)

31 B.R. 409, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 5865
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida.
DecidedJuly 1, 1983
Docket19-12633
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 31 B.R. 409 (Continental Bank v. Freehling (In Re Karl A. Neise, Inc.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Continental Bank v. Freehling (In Re Karl A. Neise, Inc.), 31 B.R. 409, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 5865 (Fla. 1983).

Opinion

SIDNEY M. WEAVER, Bankruptcy Judge.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

THIS CAUSE having come on for hearing upon an Amended Complaint Seeking Abandonment of Property of Debtor, or, Alternatively, Modification of Stay to Permit Foreclosure of Security Interest and Other Relief; and the Court, having heard the testimony and examined the evidence presented; observed the candor and demeanor of the witnesses; considered the arguments of counsel; and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, does hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

*411 This adversary proceeding is a lien contest between two creditors, each claiming a duly perfected first priority security interest in the Debtors’ personalty. The material facts are undisputed.

The Debtors, affiliates within the meaning of § 101(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, were engaged in the business of importing and selling machine tools and machine tool parts. Prior to these proceedings, the two Debtors operated as a single business enterprise, and early in these proceedings this Court ordered joint administration of the two estates.

The transactions which give rise to the competing lien claims here at issue, arise from the sale of the Debtors’ assets. At the time of the sale, the Debtors’ principal place of business and the Debtors’ assets were located in the State of New York. In July, 1979, the Debtors’ assets, including their corporate names, were purchased by CCM Machine Corporation (“CCM”). The basic document which memorializes the transaction is an Agreement dated Juné 6, 1979 (“the Agreement”). Section IV of the agreement provides, inter alia, that the buyer will borrow a portion of the purchase price from a bank; that the buyer will give the bank a first priority security interest in the assets purchased; that the buyer will give the sellers a security interest in the assets purchased; and that, “the security interest of sellers shall be junior and subordinate only to the security interest of [the bank].”

Plaintiff in this adversary proceeding is Continental Bank (“Continental”), a New York banking corporation. At the time of sale, the Debtors executed and delivered to Continental in the state of New York a promissory note secured by a first priority security interest in the Debtors' personalty. Continental perfected its security interest by filing financing statements in the State of New York in July, 1979.

Defendants, Carla Holdings, Inc. (“Carla”) and Jaryn Enterprises, Inc. (“Jaryn”) (collectively “Carla and Jaryn”), sellers of the Debtors’ assets to CCM, also received a security interest in the Debtors’ personalty, which they perfected by filing financing statements in the State of New York. In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, those financing statements expressly provide that the holder has a “Second priority security interest in all machinery, equipment, furniture, fixtures and inventory now owned or hereafter acquired, subordinate only to security interest therein of Continental Bank .... ”

About a year later, on July 2, 1980, the Debtors and Carla and Jaryn entered into a Supplemental Agreement, which, inter alia, permitted the transfer of the Debtors’ assets to a location within Florida. Paragraph 3(a) of the Supplemental Agreement again grants Carla a security interest in the Debtors’ assets but expressly provides that, “the said security interest granted to Carla in this paragraph 3(a) is and shall be subordinate and junior only to the security interest of the Bank .... ”

Between August 5 and 8, 1980, the debtors moved their assets to Florida. Within four months of the transfer, on December 4, 1980, Continental filed a financing statement with the office of the Florida Secretary of State, covering, “First priority security interest in all machinery, equipment, furniture, fixtures and inventory now owned or hereafter acquired.” The “proceeds” and “products” boxes were checked on the financing statement form UCC-1. In addition, Continental’s financing statement contained the following notation:

The secured party(ies) whose signature(s) appears below, states that the stamps required by Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, if any, have been placed on the promissory instruments secured hereby, and will be placed on any additional and similar instrument that may be so secured.

On September 4, 1980, Carla filed a financing statement with the Florida Secretary of State which provided, inter alia,

Second priority security interest in all machinery, equipment, furniture, fixtures and inventory now owned or hereafter acquired, subordinate only to the security interest therein of Continental Bank, 108 Seventh Street, Garden City, New York. *412 The secured party states that the stamps required by Ch. 201 F.S., if any, have been placed on the promissory instruments secured thereby, and will be placed ' on any additional and similar instrument that may be secured.

Continental, which had accepted delivery of its promissory note from the Debtors in New York in 1979, has neither purchased documentary tax stamps nor affixed them to the note. Carla, on the other hand, upon filing in Florida, did purchase and affix to its promissory note documentary stamps evidencing payment of $495 in documentary stamp taxes.

On September 4, 1981, the Debtors filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, seeking to reorganize their business under the protection of this Court. During the pendency of those proceedings, Carla and Jaryn sought various forms of relief, including adequate protection. By Order of this Court dated October 23,1981, as supplemented by Order of December 3, 1981 (collectively “the Orders”), this Court granted adequate protection to both lien claimants who are parties to this adversary proceeding. The Orders directed the Debtors to grant to Continental a first priority lien in post-petition inventory and equipment and to grant to Carla and Jaryn a second priority lien in post-petition inventory, equipment and proceeds. The Orders expressly provide, however, that the granting of such post-petition liens shall in no way prejudice the right of any party in interest to request a determination of the validity, priority and extent of the liens asserted by Continental or by Carla and Jaryn.

To comply with the Orders, the Debtors granted the required security interests to Continental Bank and to Carla and Jaryn. Continental Bank further perfected its post-petition security interest by filing a financing statement on January 6, 1983, reflecting a “First security interest in all fixtures, equipment, machinery, appliances and upon all inventory acquired post-petition.” Again, the “proceeds” box on the form UCC-1 was checked. Carla and Jaryn also perfected their post-petition adequate protection lien by filing a financing statement on February 4, 1982, covering all the Debtors’ inventory, machinery, equipment, furniture and fixtures, accounts receivable and proceeds thereof arising post-petition. Although neither claimant’s description is entirely consistent with the mandate of the Orders, the post-petition liens were created by the Orders, so the Orders must perforce control the scope and extent of any post-petition lien claims asserted here.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 B.R. 409, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 5865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-bank-v-freehling-in-re-karl-a-neise-inc-flsb-1983.