Higgason v. Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance, Inc. (In re Pierce)

498 F.3d 277
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMay 29, 2013
DocketNo. 12-5763
StatusPublished

This text of 498 F.3d 277 (Higgason v. Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance, Inc. (In re Pierce)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Higgason v. Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance, Inc. (In re Pierce), 498 F.3d 277 (6th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

OPINION

BERNICE B. DONALD, Circuit Judge.

Maxie E. Higgason, Jr., a Chapter 7 Trustee, brought a strong-arm proceeding against Appellant Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. (Vanderbilt) to avoid a lien claimed by Vanderbilt against William W. Pierce, Jr.’s manufactured home. Vanderbilt failed to submit its Certificate of Title and title lien statement to the county clerk in Pierce’s county of residence for notation of its security interest on the Certificate of Title. We quite recently confronted virtually identical factual and legal issues in Vanderbilt Mortgage & Fin., Inc. v. Westenhoefer, No. 11-6216, (6th Cir. May 28, 2013). There, we concluded, that a security interest in a [278]*278manufactured home is not properly perfected under Kentucky law unless the Certificate of Title has been submitted to the county clerk in the debtor’s county of residence for the security interest to be noted on the Certificate of Title by that Clerk. That did not happen here. On the basis of Westenhoefer, we AFFIRM;

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
498 F.3d 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higgason-v-vanderbilt-mortgage-finance-inc-in-re-pierce-ca6-2013.