Westenhoefer v. Chrysler Capital

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Kentucky
DecidedDecember 30, 2021
Docket21-06004
StatusUnknown

This text of Westenhoefer v. Chrysler Capital (Westenhoefer v. Chrysler Capital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Westenhoefer v. Chrysler Capital, (Ky. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LONDON DIVISION

IN RE

STEVEN BRADLEY JOSEPH CLAY CASE NO. 21-60208 SOMMER BROOKE CLAY

DEBTORS

JAMES R. WESTENHOEFER, TRUSTEE PLAINTIFF

V. ADV. NO. 21-6004

CHRYSLER CAPITAL, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the Defendant Santander Consumer USA Inc., d/b/a Chrysler Capital [ECF No. 27], and the Plaintiff James R. Westenhoefer in his capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee [ECF No. 29]. A hearing was held on December 16, 2021, and the matter taken under submission. The Trustee’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and Chrysler Capital’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. I. The Undisputed Facts. A. Chrysler Capital’s Lien. On February 29, 2020, the Debtors signed a Retail Installment Sale Contract (“Contract”) with Tim Short Motors, LLC (“Dealership”) for the purchase of a 2020 Jeep Renegade, VIN: ZACNJBBB0LPL09797 (“Vehicle”). [ECF No. 26 at ¶¶ 1, 2, Joint Ex. 1.] The Debtors listed their address on the Contract as “4 Meadows Trailer Park, Corbin, (WHITLEY), KY 40701.” [Id. at ¶ 4.] The Dealership prepared a form TC 96-182 Application for Title and Registration (“Application”). [Id. at ¶ 6, Joint Exs. 1 and 2.] The Application was signed by the Debtors and the Dealership, and the Debtors’ signature was notarized. [Id.] The Application lists the same address as the Contract. [Id.] The Dealership also prepared a Title Lien Statement that was filed with the Whitley

County Clerk on March 13, 2020. [Id. at ¶ 8, Joint Ex. 5.] A Certificate of Title issued noting the lien in Whitley County. [Id. at ¶ 8; Joint Ex. 6.] The Contract was subsequently assigned to Chrysler Capital. [Id. at ¶ 3.] B. The Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. The Debtors filed their chapter 7 petition on March 29, 2021. [Id. at ¶ 5, Joint Ex. 2.] The Petition lists the Debtors’ address as 4 Ruggles St., Corbin, KY 40701. [Id.] The Petition indicates this address is in Whitley County, Kentucky. [Id.] On March 30, 2021, James R. Westenhoefer was appointed chapter 7 trustee. [Id. at ¶ 10.] The Trustee researched the Debtors' address and discovered the Debtors’ residence is in

Knox County, not Whitley County. [Id. at ¶ 11, Joint Ex. 7.] The parties stipulated: “The Debtors lived in Knox County at the time they purchased the Vehicle and at the time the bankruptcy was filed.” [Id. at ¶ 12.] C. The Avoidance Proceeding. The Trustee filed this adversary proceeding on April 23, 2021. [ECF No. 1.] The Trustee, acting as a hypothetical judicial lien creditor under 11 U.S.C. § 544, seeks to avoid Chrysler Capital’s lien because it is unperfected under Kentucky law. [Id.] The Trustee maintains the lien is unperfected because Chrysler Capital did not note its lien in the Debtors’ correct county of residence as required by K.R.S. § 186A.190. [Id.] Chrysler Capital filed an answer on May 10, 2021. [ECF No. 8.] Chrysler Capital contends that its lien is perfected pursuant to the July 15, 2020 amendments to K.R.S. § 186A.190, which now allow a creditor to rely on a borrower’s representation of his county of residence on a notarized state form. The parties’ filed cross-motions for summary judgment and related papers. [ECF Nos.

27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37.] Chrysler Capital argues that the amendments to K.R.S. § 186A.190 control; the Trustee seeks application of the previous, well-settled law. The July 15, 2020 amendments to the statute are only applicable if they are retroactive to the perfection of the lien in March 2020. If retroactive, then the issue is whether Chrysler Capital properly perfected its lien pursuant to the amended requirements. II. Summary Judgment Standard. Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and “the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56 (incorporated by FED. R. BANKR. P. 7056); Menninger v. Accredited Home Lenders (In re Morgeson), 371

B.R. 798, 800–01 (6th Cir. B.A.P. 2007). The parties filed joint stipulations and agreed that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Resolution of this case requires interpretation of a statute, which is a matter of law. Derungs v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 374 F.3d 428, 431 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Royal Geropsychiatric Services, Inc. v. Tompkins, 159 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 1998)). No additional evidence is necessary, and the matter is ready for judgment. III. Chrysler Capital’s Lien Is Unperfected and Avoidable. K.R.S. § 186A.190 outlines the procedure for perfecting a security interest on a titled vehicle. Under the law existing in March 2020, the notation of Chrysler Capital’s lien was required in the county where the Debtors resided. See K.R.S. § 186A.190(2) (effective July 14, 2018) (“… the notation of security interests relating to property required to be titled in Kentucky through the county clerk shall be done in the office of the county clerk of the county in which the debtor resides.”). See also Johnson v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., 313 S.W.3d 557, 561 (Ky. 2010) (holding perfection of a vehicle lien does not occur until physical notation is made on the title).

A creditor whose lien is noted in the wrong county cannot prevail over a bankruptcy trustee exercising his § 544 rights, even if the debtor is the source of the incorrect information. See, e.g., Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. v. Higgason (In re Pierce), 471 B.R. 876, 882 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2012) (holding a lien is avoidable under § 544 as unperfected under Kentucky law where the lien was noted in the wrong county of residence); Westenhoefer v. Bank of the West (In re Eldridge), No. 19-61330, 2020 WL 1182668, at *1-2 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. Feb. 25, 2020) (same). Chrysler Capital admits that its lien was noted in the wrong county (Whitley County instead of Knox County). So Chrysler Capital’s lien is unperfected under then-existing law and

subject to avoidance. But Chrysler Capital argues changes to K.R.S. § 186A.190, effective on July 15, 2020, apply and alter this result. That argument fails because the new law was not then in effect. IV. The Subsequent Amendments to K.R.S. § 186A.190 Do Not Apply Retroactively.

Amendments to K.R.S. § 186A.190 that took effect July 15, 2020, allow reliance on a debtor’s notarized representation of his or her county of residence on a state-approved form. Subsection (2) now provides: (2) A motor vehicle dealer, a secured party or its representative, an assignee of a retail installment contract lender, or a county clerk shall rely on a county of residence designated by the debtor on any approved, notarized state form utilized in lien titling or the title transfer process signed by the debtor. Reliance on the foregoing by the motor vehicle dealer, secured parties, and county clerk shall relieve those persons from liability to any third party claiming failure to comply with this section.

K.R.S. § 186A.190 (effective July 15, 2020) (emphasis supplied). Amended subsection (2) and additional changes to K.R.S. § 186A.190 appear to address the situation Chrysler Capital faces. Chrysler Capital relied on the notarized Application that identified Whitley County as the Debtors’ county of residence, the same county where the lien was noted on the title.

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

Related

Commonwealth Department of Agriculture v. Vinson
30 S.W.3d 162 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2000)
In Re Gruseck & Son, Inc.
385 B.R. 799 (Sixth Circuit, 2008)
In Re Henson
391 B.R. 210 (Sixth Circuit, 2008)
Johnson v. Branch Banking and Trust Co.
313 S.W.3d 557 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2010)
Royal Geropsychiatric Services, Inc. v. Tompkins
159 F.3d 238 (Sixth Circuit, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Westenhoefer v. Chrysler Capital, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westenhoefer-v-chrysler-capital-kyeb-2021.