In re Schlote

177 B.R. 315, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 126
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nebraska
DecidedJanuary 18, 1995
DocketBankruptcy No. 93-81699
StatusPublished

This text of 177 B.R. 315 (In re Schlote) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Schlote, 177 B.R. 315, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 126 (Neb. 1995).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

TIMOTHY J. MAHONEY, Chief Judge.

Hearing was held on confirmation of plan. Appearing on behalf of debtors was John Harmelink of Harmelink & Fox Law Office, Yankton, South Dakota. Appearing on behalf of FmHA was Laurie Barrett of Omaha, Nebraska. Appearing on behalf of Osmond Coop was William Bianco of Kennedy, Holland, DeLaey & Svoboda, Omaha, Nebraska. Appearing as trustee was Richard Lydick of Omaha, Nebraska. This memorandum contains findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Fed.Bankr.R. 7052 and Fed. R.Civ.P. 52. This is a core proceeding as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Background

The debtors filed for Chapter 12 bankruptcy relief on October 18, 1993. The Chapter 12 plan under consideration applies the future income of the debtors to the claims of the debtors’ creditors over five years. The general unsecured class of claimants will receive approximately 78% of the present value of their claims over the duration of the plan.

One creditor, Osmond Cooperative, Inc. (Osmond), has objected to the debtors’ proposed plan. Osmond takes the position that the debtors have failed to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 1222(a) because the plan does not provide for the secured portion of Osmond’s claim. Osmond believes that of its total claim of $13,360.88, $12,506.76 of this amount is secured by the debtors’ corn crops.

At the hearing on the confirmation of the debtors’ plan, Osmond took the position that its security interest in the debtors’ crops included the 1993 crops which were “growing” when Osmond’s fertilizer and chemical lien in the debtors’ crops expired. The debtors argued that Osmond agreed to subordinate its fertilizer lien in the debtors’ 1992 corn crops to the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and that Osmond’s fertilizer lien expired before attaching to the debtors’ 1993 crops. The Court ordered the parties to brief this issue and took the matter under advisement.

Decision

Osmond has a security interest in the 1993 corn crop which was growing at the time Osmond’s fertilizer and chemical lien expired. The definition of “produced” as used in Section 52-1101 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes encompasses crops which are growing at the time the fertilizer lien expired.

Discussion

A. Statutory Authority

Osmond was authorized to file a fertilizer and agricultural lien on the debtors’ corn crops pursuant to Section 52-1101 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, which provides:

A person, including a firm or corporation, who shall contract or agree with another (1) to furnish any fertilizer, soil condition[317]*317er, or agricultural chemical, (2) to furnish machinery and equipment for the application of such products, or (3) to perform work or labor in the application of such products shall have a lien for the agreed charges, ..., upon crops produced ivithin one year upon the land where such product ivas applied, the machinery or equipment for application was used, or the work or labor of application was performed, and upon the proceeds from the sale of the crops.

Neb.Rev.Stat. § 52-1101 (Reissue 1993) (emphasis added). Under Section 52-1101, a valid lien is created at the time the products, labor, or machinery is supplied. Commerce Sav. Scottsbluff v. F.H. Schafer Elev., 231 Neb. 288, 436 N.W.2d 151 (Neb.1989). The lien must be filed within sixty days, or although still a lien on a debtor’s crops, the lien will lose its priority over subsequent lienholders. Id.; Neb.Rev.Stat. § 52-1103 (Reissue 1993).

The dispute in this case is whether the language in Section 52-1101, which grants a lien upon the “crops produced within one year upon the land where such product was applied” includes crops which were “growing” at the time the one year expired or only applies to crops which were fully harvested and ready to be sold at the time the one year expired.

B. Findings of Fact

The debtors purchased various farm products and services from Osmond from April 6, 1992 through July 1, 1992. On August 21, 1992, Osmond filed a fertilizer and agricultural chemical lien with the Knox County, Nebraska, Clerk, thereby perfecting a lien in the debtors’ corn crop in compliance with Nebraska law. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 52-1102 (Reissue 1993).

On January 15, 1993, Osmond subordinated its lien in the debtors’ crops to the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). A farm storage note and security agreement was executed between the debtors and CCC on January 25, 1993. CCC was given a fust lien in 10,277 bushels of the debtors’ 1992 corn. The proceeds of the $16,487.28 loan from CCC were used to pay the claims of creditors of the debtors, including a portion of Os-mond’s claim.

Osmond’s lien expired pursuant to Section 52-1101 on or about the first day of July, 1993. At the time of expiration, the 1993 crops were in the ground and growing, but were not yet mature or harvested.

C. Lien on 199S Crops

Nebraska case law addressing Section 52-1101, et al., has not defined the term “produced” as it is used in the statute. See Commerce Savings Scottsbluff, Inc. v. F.H. Schafer Elevator, Inc., 231 Neb. 288, 436 N.W.2d 151 (Neb.1989); Circle 76 Fertilizer, Inc. v. Nelsen, 219 Neb. 661, 365 N.W.2d 460 (Neb.1985). Other sections of the Nebraska Revised Statutes which use the language “crops produced” also do not define how “produced” should be interpreted. Neb.Rev. Stat. § 52-901 (Reissue 1993) (granting a petroleum products lien upon “all such crops produced” by the aide of the petroleum products); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 52-1201 (Reissue 1993) (granting a seed or electrical power and energy lien in “all crops produced from the seed furnished or produced with the electrical power or energy furnished”).

Neither the parties nor the Court could find a statute in another state which employed both the “crops produced” and the “within one year” language. Most statutes granting liens in exchange for products or services which provide a farmer with operational inputs specifically limit the lien to the season of crops produced directly as a result of the use of the product or service.

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

Related

Circle 76 Fertilizer, Inc. v. Nelsen
365 N.W.2d 460 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1985)
Commerce Savings Scottsbluff, Inc. v. F.H. Schafer Elevator, Inc.
436 N.W.2d 151 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
177 B.R. 315, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-schlote-nebraskab-1995.