Rice v. Fas Fax Corp. (In Re Hot Shots Burgers & Fries, Inc.)

183 B.R. 848, 26 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1251, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 869, 1995 WL 389241
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas
DecidedMarch 27, 1995
DocketBankruptcy No. 91-41298M. Adv. No. 92-4130M
StatusPublished

This text of 183 B.R. 848 (Rice v. Fas Fax Corp. (In Re Hot Shots Burgers & Fries, Inc.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rice v. Fas Fax Corp. (In Re Hot Shots Burgers & Fries, Inc.), 183 B.R. 848, 26 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1251, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 869, 1995 WL 389241 (Ark. 1995).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES G. MIXON, Chief Judge.

On May 28, 1991, Hot Shots Burgers & Fries, Inc., (debtor) filed a voluntary petition for relief under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The case was converted to a proceeding under Chapter 7 and M. Randy Rice was appointed trustee. On August 21, 1992, the trustee filed a complaint seeking a determination as to the correct distribution of proceeds from the sale of a modular building. The modular building was sold by Wheelees, Inc., (Whee-lees) in 1987 to Edward A. Salazar, Luis E. Salazar and Thomas J. Houlihan. Wheelees claims it is entitled to the proceeds of the sale because it has a perfected security interest in the proceeds.

In an order entered March 23,1994, it was determined that the modular building was personal property and not real property. Rice v. Fas Fax Corp. (In re Hot Shots Burgers & Fries, Inc.), 169 B.R. 920, 924-25 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.1994). The Court also found that the owners of the modular building were not parties to the action and ordered the trustee to join Edward A. Salazar, Luis E. Salazar, and Thomas J. Houlihan to this adversary proceeding. Each of the three owners had a Chapter 7 proceeding pending at the time this adversary proceeding was filed; therefore, on June 15, 1994, the trustee filed an amended complaint joining Charles D. Davidson, as trustee for Luis E. Salazar and Thomas J. Houlihan and joining Richard Cox, as trustee for Edward Salazar. The trustees for each of the individuals challenge Wheelees’ claimed security interest on the ground that Wheelees failed to properly perfect its security interest. A trial was held on the amended complaint on December 6,1994, and the Court took the matter under advisement.

The proceeding before the Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) (1988), and the Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in the case. The following shall constitute the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7052.

*850 BACKGROUND

For clarity, relevant portions of this Court’s previous decision are quoted below:

The debtor was a closely-held corporation that was engaged in the “fast food” business beginning in 1986.
The debtor was operated by Edward Salazar, Luis Salazar, and Thomas Houlihan (collectively “the individuals”), although the stock in the corporation was owned by their wives. The modular building in question was originally purchased by Wheelees from Mobi International in Forrest City, Arkansas. Wheelees used the modular building in the operation of a fast food restaurant in Forrest City under the name Wheelees.
The modular building was sold by Whee-lees in April 1989 for the sum of $50,-000.00. The evidence concerning the sale is confusing because sometimes the transaction appears to be between Wheelees and Edward Salazar, Luis Salazar and Thomas Houlihan, and other times between Wheelees and the debtor corporation, Hot Shots. For example, the modular building was sold by Wheelees for the total sum of $50,000.00. Wheelees received $10,000.00 in cash at the time of the sale. Edward Salazar testified regarding the down payment as follows:
Q: ... Can you testify positively as to who paid the ten down?
A: No, not positively.
Q: Could it have been that one of you individually, such as your father, paid the ten down?
A: I would think he probably did— yeah.

Record at 67.

Wheelees executed a bill of sale conveying the modular building to Edward A. Salazar, Luis E. Salazar, and Thomas J. Houlihan, individually. The $40,000.00 balance was to be paid according to the terms of the promissory note payable to Whee-lees and executed by Edward A. Salazar, Luis E. Salazar, and Thomas J. Houlihan, individually. The note provided for payments of $1,000.00 each month until paid in full. All payments made on the note in 1990 were made from Hot Shots Burgers & Fries, Inc.’s bank account.

In order to secure payment of the $40,-000.00 note, Edward A. Salazar, Luis E. Salazar, and Thomas J. Houlihan executed a combination financing statement and security agreement, conveying a security interest in the modular building to Wheelees. The financing statement was recorded on April 21, 1989, in the office of the Circuit Clerk of St. Francis County, Arkansas, and recorded on April 26, 1989, in the office of the Secretary of State.

Edward Salazar testified that “they” operated a restaurant in the modular building in Forrest City for approximately one year before he decided to move the building to a new location in Bryant, Arkansas. In order to accomplish the move it was necessary to terminate a lease of the real property where the building was situated in Forrest City. The lease agreement was made by virtue of an assignment of an existing lease from Thomas B. Devazier to Edward A. Salazar, Luis E. Salazar, and Thomas J. Houlihan. The documents terminating the lease referred to the lessees as Edward A. Salazar, Luis E. Salazar and Thomas J. Houlihan, individually. The lessor received $11,200.00 consideration for the termination of the lease, which was paid by two cashier cheeks on which Luis Salazar was indicated as the remitter.

Edward Salazar testified that the debtor corporation owned the building in Bryant. He also testified that when he used the word “we” he was referring to Hot Shots Burgers & Fries, Inc. He stated:

No, no I mean, we worked for the company, we owned the company, and the company owned — . It’s one of those things where I always felt that Hot Shots was an extension of myself. At least, you know, it’s something I created in my mind and I made it physically happen. So I have a hard time with them being really separated. I always felt that — you know, I was always there.

Record at 125-26. There was no testimony or documentary evidence indicating that the modular building was ever listed on the *851 debtor corporation’s records as an asset. There was also no documentary evidence indicating a formal transfer of title from the individuals to the corporation. The building was, however, only used in connection with the business activities of the corporate debtor, Hot Shots.

In re Hot Shots Burgers & Fries, Inc., 169 B.R. at 922-23.

Thomas J. Houlihan and Edward A. Salazar both testified that they had lived in Pulaski County, Arkansas, since 1979. Edward A. Salazar also testified that the address reflected on the financing statement, #3 Powderhorn Court, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, was Luis E. Salazar’s address at the time the financing statement was signed.

DISCUSSION

The trustees contend that Wheelees has an unperfected security interest in the property because it failed to file its financing statement in the proper place.

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

Related

Cummings, Inc. v. Beardsley
609 S.W.2d 66 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1980)
Gibson v. Dennis (In Re Russell)
123 B.R. 48 (W.D. Arkansas, 1990)
Bank of Yellville v. Scott (In Re Scott)
113 B.R. 516 (W.D. Arkansas, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
183 B.R. 848, 26 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1251, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 869, 1995 WL 389241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-fas-fax-corp-in-re-hot-shots-burgers-fries-inc-areb-1995.