Turtle Mountain State Bank v. McDougall (In re McDougall)

572 B.R. 239
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. North Dakota
DecidedMay 31, 2017
DocketBankruptcy No.: 16-30542; Adversary No.: 17-7005
StatusPublished

This text of 572 B.R. 239 (Turtle Mountain State Bank v. McDougall (In re McDougall)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. North Dakota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Turtle Mountain State Bank v. McDougall (In re McDougall), 572 B.R. 239 (N.D. 2017).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Shon Hastings, United States Bankruptcy Judge

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Turtle Mountain State Bank (“TMSB”) initiated this adversary proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 506, seeking a determination that its liens against proceeds from the sale of livestock are first priority liens senior to the claims or liens filed by Defendants Michael McDougall, Wilbur-Ellis Rolla, Garrett Hoopman and North Central Grain Cooperative (“NCGC”). Defendants Michael McDougall, Hoopman and NCGC filed answers denying that TMSB’s liens were prior to their agricultural supplier’s liens. Wilbur-Ellis Rolla did not file an answer. The Court tried this adversary proceeding on May 9, 2017. After the presentation of evidence and closing argument, the Court granted in part [242]*242and denied in part TMSB’s requested relief against Michael MeDougall and granted TMSB’s requested relief against Wilbur-Ellis Rolla. Doc. 18. The Court took the issues related to the priority of Hoop-man and NCGC’s agricultural supplier’s liens under advisement.

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 Ü.S.C. § 1334(b). This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). The venue of this action is proper under U.S.C. § 1409(a).

II. Background

A. TMSB holds a valid and perfected lien in livestock proceeds.

Debtors executed a number of promissory notes agreeing to repay debt to TMSB. Exs. 200-203. The original principal on the notes totaled $1,275,000. Although TMSB did not provide the outstanding balance due on these notes, Schedule D shows an outstanding debt to TMSB totaling $1,257,024.36. Ex. 209 at 25.

The promissory notes are secured by a commercial security agreement dated October 19, 2011. Ex. 204. Collateral for this security agreement includes all farm products, livestock and their young. Id. TMSB perfected its security interests by filing a financing statement, a continuation and an amendment. Exs. 205-207 (Initial Financial Statement number 11-000700956-2). Defendants do not dispute that TMSB holds a valid and properly perfected Hen against farm- products, livestock and their young.

Debtors sold livestock at various sales in October 2016 through February 2017. Proceeds from these sales total $599,505.42. Ex. 211.1 TMSB holds a valid and properly perfected Hen against these proceeds. Exs. 204-207.

B. NCGC claims its agricultural supplier’s lien has priority over TMSB’s lien against livestock proceeds checks on which Twin Creek Ranch is listed as a payee.

Debtors “set up” Twin Creek Ranch, LLC in 2012 and they “implemented it”, in 2014.2 Erica MeDougall testified that Twin Creek Ranch was an “operating entity.” She explained that, beginning in 2014, she and Kent conducted most of their cattle operation through Twin Creek Ranch, including purchasing supplies and seUing cattle. Erica MeDougall opened a checking .account with TMSB under the name “Twin Creek Ranch, LLC” for this purpose. She paid bills from the ranching operation out óf this account and deposited proceeds from the sale of farm products or cattle into this account. Debtors set up a check-[243]*243mg account under Twin Creek Ranch at American Bank Center as well. Ex. 209 at 9.

Erica McDougall also established credit accounts with several suppliers under the name “Twin Creek Ranch, LLC.” The account with NCGC is one example. As part of their ranching operation, Debtors regularly obtained supplies from NCGC. In late 2013 or early 2014, Erica McDougall gave NCGC the tax identification number for Twin Creek Ranch and asked that all livestock and ranch supplies be billed to this entity and all personal items be billed to Kent and Erica McDougall. According to NCGS’s long-time bookkeeper, Julie Peters, after Erica McDougall contacted NCGC about the McDougall’s account, Twin Creek Rancfy bought and paid for agricultural supplies at NCGC.

In 2016, NCGC supplied petroleum products and miscellaneous feed and seed supplies for the c^re of livestock Peters assumed Twin Creek Ranch owned. When Twin Creek Ranch neglected to timely pay these invoices, NCGC filed an agricultural supplier’s lien for $14,753.80. Ex. 601. NCGC listed “Twin Creek Ranch, LLC” as the entity to which the supplies were furnished.

In support of the sum of its lien, NCGC offered a computer-generated list of unpaid invoices, which Peters verified at trial were billed to Twin Creek Ranch for the care of livestock. Ex. 600. The earliest invoice on this list is dated April 4, 2016. Consistent with this date, NCGC listed April 4, 2016, as the “first date of supplies first furnished” on the agricultural supplier’s lien form.

Before and after Debtors petitioned for bankruptcy relief in October 2016, Kent McDougall sold some livestock under the name “Twin Creek Ranch, LLC.” See sm pra note 1. NCGC claims that its agricultural supplier’s lien attached to proceeds from the sale of livestock, specifically the checks which list Twin Creek Ranch as a payee. Peters assumed that Twin Creek Ranch owned the livestock because it was listed as a payee. She explained that, in general, the payee on a livestock check is the owner of the livestock.

Although Kent and/or Erica McDougall routinely sold cattle under the name Twin Creek Ranch, Debtors claim this entity did not own the livestock sold under its name. According to Erica McDougall, “no assets were ever transferred” into the LLC. Ex. 214 at 32. She testified that Debtors intended to eventually transfer ownership of the cattle into the name of Twin Creek Ranch, but never actually made the transfer. Nevertheless, Erica McDougall agreed that those cattle sold under the name of Twin Creek Ranch before bankruptcy were owned by Twin Creek Ranch. At trial, she testified:

Q: So—just so I’m clear—prior to this you’re filing bankruptcy, you have sold cattle in the name of Twin Creek Ranch?
A: Yes.
Q: So, when you sold the cattle under the name of Twin Creek Ranch, that would indicate that Twin Creek Ranch was the owner of those cattle?
A: They were the operating—yes, that was our intention.
Q: That they were the owners?
A: Yes.

Debtors Kent and Erica McDougall filed a petition for relief under Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code on October 19, 2016. On Schedule B, Debtors listed Twin Creek Ranch as an asset and assigned it a value of $0.00. Ex. 209 at 9. They also listed four bank accounts (two with a “Twin Creek Ranch” notation) and claimed the balance of all four accounts exempt on Schedule C. Schedule B also includes a list of several [244]*244hundred head of livestock, but there is no reference to Twin Creek Ranch on the livestock list. Id. at 11-12; see also id. at 14. On Schedule D and E/F, Debtors list NCGC as a creditor, again omitting any reference to Twin Creek Ranch.

C. Hoopman claims his agricultural supplier’s lien is prior to TMSB’s lien against livestock proceeds.

On April 6, 2016, Hoopman and Kent McDougall entered into a pasture lease for cash rent.

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

Related

Great Western Bank v. Willmar Poultry Co.
2010 ND 50 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
572 B.R. 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turtle-mountain-state-bank-v-mcdougall-in-re-mcdougall-ndb-2017.