In Re Ware

59 B.R. 549, 1 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 576, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 6711
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio
DecidedFebruary 12, 1986
Docket18-17644
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 59 B.R. 549 (In Re Ware) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Ware, 59 B.R. 549, 1 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 576, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 6711 (Ohio 1986).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RICHARD L. SPEER, Bankruptcy Judge.

This cause comes before the Court upon the Motion For Relief From Stay and Abandonment of Property filed by Community First Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Community). The Court has conducted a Hearing on this Motion, at which the parties were afforded the opportunity to present any evidence and arguments they wished the Court to consider. The Court has reviewed the evidence, the arguments, and the entire record in this case. Based upon that review, and for the following reasons, the Court finds that the Stay should be RELIEVED IN PART.

FACTS

With the exception of one issue, the operative facts in this case do not appear to be in dispute. On or about April 20, 1983, the Debtors executed a promissory note in favor of Community in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred Forty-two and 60/100 Dollars ($15,342.60). As security for that note the Debtors gave Community a security interest in a variety of tools, equipment, and vehicles. Included in that property were two pipe wrenches, a disc sander, two angle grinders, a socket set, a bench grinder, an air compressor, a sabre saw,' a hand truck, and a utility trailer. The security interest also included other items of property. However, the other items are not the objects of the present dispute. After receiving the security interest Community filed a financing statement in the Hardin County Recorder’s Office. No financing statement was filed with the Secretary of State.

At some time later, it appears that the Debtors defaulted on the note and were subjected to a foreclosure action by Community in State Court. A judgment of foreclosure was rendered on May 28, 1985. It appears that Community has been able to successfully repossess the other items of collateral. However, the Debtors have retained possession of the specific items of property which are listed above.

On June 24, 1985, the Debtors filed their voluntary Chapter 7 Petition with this Court. In an effort to repossess the remaining collateral, Community has filed the Motion which is presently before the Court. The Debtors oppose the Motion on the grounds that Community is not properly perfected in the remaining collateral. Specifically, the Debtors claim that because the remaining items of collateral are tools which are used in the Husband-Debtor’s *551 trade, they cannot be considered consumer items for purposes of perfecting a security interest. They further argue that perfection of the security interest in those items could only be accomplished by the filing of a financing statement in both the County Recorder’s Office and the Secretary of State’s Office. As a result, the Debtors contend that Community’s interest is un-perfected, and that the Trustee has acquired an interest superior to that of Community. Community summarily opposes this argument, and asserts that at the time of the loan the tools were primarily for personal use.

In the Statement of Income and Expenses, the Debtors indicate that the husband is a self-employed carpenter, plumber, and electrician. On the Statement of Financial Affairs he indicates that he formerly operated a laundromat, and that he presently does free lance snowplowing, carpentry, and maintenance work. He testified at the hearing that at the time the loan from Community was received he was the owner of a laundromat and that he did “spot” remodeling. Community did not present any independent evidence to rebut the evidence offered by the Debtors. However, on cross examination, the Husband-Debtor admitted that the collateral in question was sometimes used in his business ventures. The parties appear to have agreed that the value of the remaining collateral is less than the obligation owed to Community, and that the property has no value to the estate. No objection to the abandonment has been made by the Trustee.

LAW

The provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 544(a) state in pertinent part:

(a) The trustee shall have, as of the commencement of the case, and without regard to any knowledge of the trustee or of any creditor, the rights and powers of, or may avoid any transfer of property of the debtor or any obligation incurred by the debtor that is voidable by—
(1) a creditor that extends credit to the debtor at the time of the commencement of the case, and that obtains, at such time and with respect to such credit, a judicial lien on all property on which a creditor on a simple contract could have obtained such a judicial lien, whether or not such a credit exists ...

Under these provisions the Trustee receives the status of a perfected judgment lien creditor as of the commencement of the case and acquires an interest in the debtor’s property that is superior to any secured creditor whose security interest remains unperfected. Hunter v. First National Bank of Toledo (In re Chase), 54 B.R. 36 (Bkcy.N.D.Ohio 1985).

The provisions of Ohio Revised Code Section 1309.38 state in pertinent part:

(A) The proper place to file in order to perfect a security interest is as follows:
(1) when the collateral is ... consumer goods, then in the office of the county recorder in the county of the debt- or’s residence ...
(3) in all other cases, in the office of the secretary of state and, in addition, if the debtor has a place of business in only one county of this state, also in the office of the county recorder of such county, or if the debtor has no place of business in this state, but resides in the state, also in the office of the county recorder of the county in which he resides.
(B) A filing which is made in good faith in an improper place or not in all of the places required by this section is nevertheless effective with regard to any collateral as to which the filing complied with the requirements of sections 1309.01 to 1309.50 of the Revised Code ...

Under these provisions, a secured creditor must perfect a security interest by filing a financing statement in both the County Recorder’s Office and the Secretary of State’s Office when the collateral is of a type *552 which is not specifically excepted from the double filing requirement under the provisions of this section. Such an exemption is made when the collateral is consumer goods. In that event, the creditor is only required to file with the County Recorder’s Office. See, 48 Ohio Jur.2d Secured Transactions Sections 141, 168. Although a creditor may have erroneously filed its financing statements in good faith, the saving provision of Section 1309.38(B) is not effective to preclude a bankruptcy trustee from acquiring a superior interest. In re O’Brodo, 36 Ohio Op.2d 170, 7 Ohio Misc. 119 (Bkcy.N.D.Ohio 1966).

Based upon the operation of these statutes and the agreement of the parties as to all other relevant facts, the issue in this case is whether, at the time the loan was made, the collateral which remains in the Debtors’ possession was used primarily for personal purposes, or whether it was used in his business activities.

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

Related

Rommell v. Automobile Racing Club of America, Inc.
964 F.2d 1090 (Eleventh Circuit, 1992)
Rommell v. Automobile Racing Club Of America
964 F.2d 1090 (Eleventh Circuit, 1992)
Boatel Industries, Inc. v. Hester
550 A.2d 389 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 B.R. 549, 1 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 576, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 6711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ware-ohnb-1986.