978-1285770178 Case Problem Case CPC-21-07

subject Type Homework Help
subject Pages 11
subject Words 3003
subject Authors Roger LeRoy Miller

Unlock document.

This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
page-pf1
Page 1
Slip Copy, 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.), 2012 -Ohio- 30
(Cite as: 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.))
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
CHECK OHIO SUPREME COURT RULES FOR REPORTING OF OPINIONS AND WEIGHT OF LEGAL AU-
THORITY.
Court of Appeals of Ohio,
Sixth District, Sandusky County.
The UNION BANK COMPANY, Appellant
v.
Kevin HEBAN, et al., Appellee.
No. S11005.
Decided Jan. 6, 2012.
such when determining matters of priority, and
(2) cross-collateralization language in various security agreements that purported to secure all obligations of note
maker to bank did not act to secure unsecured note.
Reversed.
349Ak92 Financing Statement
349Ak94 k. Description of Collateral. Most Cited Cases
Secured Transactions 349A 145.1
prudent prospective lender or buyer on notice that the collateral sought to be purchased or encumbered might be the
subject of a preexisting security interest, and to alert second bank that secured transactions had, or at least may have,
taken place and that the particulars of those transactions could have been obtained from first bank, and thus, first
bank's four secured promissory notes became perfected security interests and should have been treated as such when
determining matters of priority, regardless of when first and second banks made advances on their respective notes,
page-pf2
Page 2
Slip Copy, 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.), 2012 -Ohio- 30
(Cite as: 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.))
[2] Secured Transactions 349A 114
was unsecured rendered, at the very least, an exception to the more generally applicable cross-collateralization pro-
visions contained in first bank's various security agreements, and thus, cross-collateralization language that purport-
ed to secure all obligations of note maker to bank did not act to secure unsecured note.
Howard B. Hershman, for appellant.
ing proceeds obtained from the liquidation of certain equipment sold by defendant Kevin Heban, Administrator of
the Estate of Thomas J. Tille, deceased. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} Decedent, Thomas Tille, operated an equipment rental business known as M.A.T.T. Equipment Company.
Over the years, Tille secured loans from various financial institutions in order to purchase equipment to operate the
business. Among the financial institutions from which Tille received loans were Union Bank and appellee, The Na-
{¶ 4} The evidence, which is undisputed, relevantly demonstrates the following:
{¶ 5} (1) June 27, 2003, Union Bank filed a financing statement covering all of Tille's equipment, including any
after-acquired property.
{¶ 6} (2) On March 14, 2006, Tille executed a promissory note and commercial security agreement with Union
Bank (“PN1”). The commercial security agreement expressly mentions the June 27, 2003 financing statement in the
page-pf3
Page 3
Slip Copy, 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.), 2012 -Ohio- 30
(Cite as: 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.))
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
{¶ 8} (4) On October 25, 2007, Union Bank filed a financing statement covering a certain truck crane belonging
to Tille, “whether * * * owned now or acquired later.”
9} (5) On December 21, 2007, Tille executed a promissory note and commercial security agreement with
loan was $40,212.00.
{¶ 10} (6) On December 24, 2007, NBOH filed a financing statement covering all of Tille's equipment, includ-
ing any after-acquired property.
11} (7) On May 9, 2008, Tille executed another promissory note and commercial security agreement with
Union Bank (“PN4”). The commercial security agreement expressly mentions a certain Bobcat mini excavator in the
ERAL DESCRIPTION,” the truck crane and the attendant financing statement filed on October 25, 2007. The bal-
ance due on PN5 is approximately $14,947.42.
{¶ 14} The trial court, in its January 11, 2011 judgment entry relevantly concluded as follows:
{¶ 15} (1) Rejecting Union Bank's claim that the PN 1 was perfected by the June 27, 2003 financing statement,
the trial court held that because Union Bank failed to show that the June 27, 2003 financing statement perfected an
ter.
18} (4) The trial court found that PN4, executed on May 9, 2008, was properly perfected by the financing
statement that was filed by Union Bank on the same day and would be the second to be paid, should there be funds
remaining after payment of PN3.
19} (5) Finally, rejecting Union Bank's claim that PN5 was perfected by the October 25, 2007 financing
page-pf4
Page 4
Slip Copy, 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.), 2012 -Ohio- 30
(Cite as: 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.))
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
the unsecured creditors, and that if funds remained available after payment of PN3 and PN4, the remaining notes
would be on equal footing with the remainder of the unsecured creditors.
21} Union Bank appealed the trial court's January 11, 2011 judgment entry, raising the following sole as-
signment of error:
{¶ 22} I. “The trial court erred in its determination of the priority of the lien claimants against the fund of mon-
ey held by Kevin Heban as Administrator of the Estate of Thomas J. Tille, deceased.”
{¶ 23} The purpose of a security agreement is to specify the necessary terms and conditions of an agreement be-
tween parties as to the existence of a security interest in collateral. Saba v. Fifth Third Bank of NW Ohio, 6th Dist.
No. L011284, 2002Ohio4658, 39. Pursuant to R.C. 1309.201(A), a security agreement is effective according
(3) the debtor has authenticated a security agreement that provides a description of the collateral. R.C. 1309.203(B).
25} A security interest is perfected if it has attached and all of the applicable requirements for perfection
have been satisfied. R.C. 1309.308(A). A security interest can be perfected at the time it attaches if the applicable
requirements for perfection are satisfied before the security interest attaches. See id.
{¶ 26} In general, a financing statement must be filed in order to perfect a security interest. See R.C. 1309.310.
see, also, Saba, supra, at ¶ 39.
{¶ 27} To be sufficient, a financing statement must provide the name of the debtor and the name of the secured
party or a representative of the secured party, and must indicate the collateral covered by the financing statement.
R.C. 1309.502(A). Further, regarding the indication of covered collateral, a financing statement need only contain a
description ‘that would put a reasonably prudent prospective lender or buyer on notice that the collateral sought to
of the information he needs to understand the secured transaction, but only with the information that such a transac-
tion has taken place and that the particulars thereof may be obtained from the named secured party at the address
shown.’ “ Id.
29} R.C. 1309.322 governs priorities among conflicting security interests in the same collateral. R.C.
1309.322(A)(1) provides:
page-pf5
Page 5
Slip Copy, 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.), 2012 -Ohio- 30
(Cite as: 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.))
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
{¶ 30} “Conflicting perfected security interests and agricultural liens rank according to priority in time of filing
or perfection. Priority dates from the earlier of the time a filing covering the collateral is first made or the security
interest or agricultural lien is first perfected, if there is no period thereafter when there is neither filing nor perfec-
tion.”
33} “On February 1, A files a financing statement covering a certain item of Debtor's equipment. On March
1, B files a financing statement covering the same equipment. On April 1, B makes a loan to Debtor and obtains a
security interest in the equipment. On May 1, A makes a loan to Debtor and obtains a security interest in the same
collateral. A has priority even though B's loan was made earlier and was perfected when it was made. It makes no
[1] 35} In the instant case, Union Bank argues that the trial court erred in concluding that a financing state-
ment, in order to be effective, must relate to a particular note, loan, or indebtedness. We agree. Ohio law simply has
no such requirement.
{¶ 36} Here, all of Union Bank's financing statements are sufficient under the applicable law. That is, they pro-
vide the name of the debtor (Tille), the name of the secured party (Union Bank), and they each indicate the collateral
or at least may have, taken place and that the particulars of those transactions could be obtained from Union Bank.
See id. Accordingly, we conclude that not only PN3 and PN4, but also PN1 and PN5, are all perfected security in-
terests, and should be treated that way when determining matters of priority.
37} For the foregoing reasons, we find Union Bank's assignment of error to be well-taken as to PN1 and
PN5.
page-pf6
Page 6
Slip Copy, 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.), 2012 -Ohio- 30
(Cite as: 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.))
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
39} Attempting to avoid this conclusion, Union Bank argues that language contained in all of its security
agreements with Tille independently operate to secure the February 2, 2007 promissory note. The paragraph that
Union Bank quotes, which is found under the heading “Cross Collateralization,” relevantly provides as follows:
40} “In addition to the Note, this Agreement secures all obligations, debts and liabilities, plus interest there-
on, of either Grantor or Borrower to Lender, or any one or more of them, as well as all claims by Lender against
Borrower or Grantor or any one or more of them, whether now existing or hereafter arising, whether related or unre-
lated to the purpose of the Note, whether voluntary or otherwise, whether due or not due, direct or indirect, deter-
mined or undetermined, absolute or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, whether Borrower or Grantor may be
tained in PN2 stating that it is unsecuredlanguage that was drafted by Union Bankrenders PN2, at the very
least, an exception to the more generally applicable cross-collateralization provision that is contained in the various
security agreements. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that PN2 is unsecured.
{¶ 42} For all of the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas, Probate
Division, is reversed as to PN1 and PN5 and is remanded to the trial court for additional proceedings consistent with
Ohio App. 6 Dist.,2012.
Union Bank Co. v. Heban
Slip Copy, 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.), 2012 -Ohio- 30
END OF DOCUMENT
Page 2
Slip Copy, 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.), 2012 -Ohio- 30
(Cite as: 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.))
[2] Secured Transactions 349A 114
was unsecured rendered, at the very least, an exception to the more generally applicable cross-collateralization pro-
visions contained in first bank's various security agreements, and thus, cross-collateralization language that purport-
ed to secure all obligations of note maker to bank did not act to secure unsecured note.
Howard B. Hershman, for appellant.
ing proceeds obtained from the liquidation of certain equipment sold by defendant Kevin Heban, Administrator of
the Estate of Thomas J. Tille, deceased. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} Decedent, Thomas Tille, operated an equipment rental business known as M.A.T.T. Equipment Company.
Over the years, Tille secured loans from various financial institutions in order to purchase equipment to operate the
business. Among the financial institutions from which Tille received loans were Union Bank and appellee, The Na-
{¶ 4} The evidence, which is undisputed, relevantly demonstrates the following:
{¶ 5} (1) June 27, 2003, Union Bank filed a financing statement covering all of Tille's equipment, including any
after-acquired property.
{¶ 6} (2) On March 14, 2006, Tille executed a promissory note and commercial security agreement with Union
Bank (“PN1”). The commercial security agreement expressly mentions the June 27, 2003 financing statement in the
Page 3
Slip Copy, 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.), 2012 -Ohio- 30
(Cite as: 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.))
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
{¶ 8} (4) On October 25, 2007, Union Bank filed a financing statement covering a certain truck crane belonging
to Tille, “whether * * * owned now or acquired later.”
9} (5) On December 21, 2007, Tille executed a promissory note and commercial security agreement with
loan was $40,212.00.
{¶ 10} (6) On December 24, 2007, NBOH filed a financing statement covering all of Tille's equipment, includ-
ing any after-acquired property.
11} (7) On May 9, 2008, Tille executed another promissory note and commercial security agreement with
Union Bank (“PN4”). The commercial security agreement expressly mentions a certain Bobcat mini excavator in the
ERAL DESCRIPTION,” the truck crane and the attendant financing statement filed on October 25, 2007. The bal-
ance due on PN5 is approximately $14,947.42.
{¶ 14} The trial court, in its January 11, 2011 judgment entry relevantly concluded as follows:
{¶ 15} (1) Rejecting Union Bank's claim that the PN 1 was perfected by the June 27, 2003 financing statement,
the trial court held that because Union Bank failed to show that the June 27, 2003 financing statement perfected an
ter.
18} (4) The trial court found that PN4, executed on May 9, 2008, was properly perfected by the financing
statement that was filed by Union Bank on the same day and would be the second to be paid, should there be funds
remaining after payment of PN3.
19} (5) Finally, rejecting Union Bank's claim that PN5 was perfected by the October 25, 2007 financing
Page 4
Slip Copy, 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.), 2012 -Ohio- 30
(Cite as: 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.))
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
the unsecured creditors, and that if funds remained available after payment of PN3 and PN4, the remaining notes
would be on equal footing with the remainder of the unsecured creditors.
21} Union Bank appealed the trial court's January 11, 2011 judgment entry, raising the following sole as-
signment of error:
{¶ 22} I. “The trial court erred in its determination of the priority of the lien claimants against the fund of mon-
ey held by Kevin Heban as Administrator of the Estate of Thomas J. Tille, deceased.”
{¶ 23} The purpose of a security agreement is to specify the necessary terms and conditions of an agreement be-
tween parties as to the existence of a security interest in collateral. Saba v. Fifth Third Bank of NW Ohio, 6th Dist.
No. L011284, 2002Ohio4658, 39. Pursuant to R.C. 1309.201(A), a security agreement is effective according
(3) the debtor has authenticated a security agreement that provides a description of the collateral. R.C. 1309.203(B).
25} A security interest is perfected if it has attached and all of the applicable requirements for perfection
have been satisfied. R.C. 1309.308(A). A security interest can be perfected at the time it attaches if the applicable
requirements for perfection are satisfied before the security interest attaches. See id.
{¶ 26} In general, a financing statement must be filed in order to perfect a security interest. See R.C. 1309.310.
see, also, Saba, supra, at ¶ 39.
{¶ 27} To be sufficient, a financing statement must provide the name of the debtor and the name of the secured
party or a representative of the secured party, and must indicate the collateral covered by the financing statement.
R.C. 1309.502(A). Further, regarding the indication of covered collateral, a financing statement need only contain a
description ‘that would put a reasonably prudent prospective lender or buyer on notice that the collateral sought to
of the information he needs to understand the secured transaction, but only with the information that such a transac-
tion has taken place and that the particulars thereof may be obtained from the named secured party at the address
shown.’ “ Id.
29} R.C. 1309.322 governs priorities among conflicting security interests in the same collateral. R.C.
1309.322(A)(1) provides:
Page 5
Slip Copy, 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.), 2012 -Ohio- 30
(Cite as: 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.))
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
{¶ 30} “Conflicting perfected security interests and agricultural liens rank according to priority in time of filing
or perfection. Priority dates from the earlier of the time a filing covering the collateral is first made or the security
interest or agricultural lien is first perfected, if there is no period thereafter when there is neither filing nor perfec-
tion.”
33} “On February 1, A files a financing statement covering a certain item of Debtor's equipment. On March
1, B files a financing statement covering the same equipment. On April 1, B makes a loan to Debtor and obtains a
security interest in the equipment. On May 1, A makes a loan to Debtor and obtains a security interest in the same
collateral. A has priority even though B's loan was made earlier and was perfected when it was made. It makes no
[1] 35} In the instant case, Union Bank argues that the trial court erred in concluding that a financing state-
ment, in order to be effective, must relate to a particular note, loan, or indebtedness. We agree. Ohio law simply has
no such requirement.
{¶ 36} Here, all of Union Bank's financing statements are sufficient under the applicable law. That is, they pro-
vide the name of the debtor (Tille), the name of the secured party (Union Bank), and they each indicate the collateral
or at least may have, taken place and that the particulars of those transactions could be obtained from Union Bank.
See id. Accordingly, we conclude that not only PN3 and PN4, but also PN1 and PN5, are all perfected security in-
terests, and should be treated that way when determining matters of priority.
37} For the foregoing reasons, we find Union Bank's assignment of error to be well-taken as to PN1 and
PN5.
Page 6
Slip Copy, 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.), 2012 -Ohio- 30
(Cite as: 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.))
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
39} Attempting to avoid this conclusion, Union Bank argues that language contained in all of its security
agreements with Tille independently operate to secure the February 2, 2007 promissory note. The paragraph that
Union Bank quotes, which is found under the heading “Cross Collateralization,” relevantly provides as follows:
40} “In addition to the Note, this Agreement secures all obligations, debts and liabilities, plus interest there-
on, of either Grantor or Borrower to Lender, or any one or more of them, as well as all claims by Lender against
Borrower or Grantor or any one or more of them, whether now existing or hereafter arising, whether related or unre-
lated to the purpose of the Note, whether voluntary or otherwise, whether due or not due, direct or indirect, deter-
mined or undetermined, absolute or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, whether Borrower or Grantor may be
tained in PN2 stating that it is unsecuredlanguage that was drafted by Union Bankrenders PN2, at the very
least, an exception to the more generally applicable cross-collateralization provision that is contained in the various
security agreements. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that PN2 is unsecured.
{¶ 42} For all of the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas, Probate
Division, is reversed as to PN1 and PN5 and is remanded to the trial court for additional proceedings consistent with
Ohio App. 6 Dist.,2012.
Union Bank Co. v. Heban
Slip Copy, 2012 WL 32102 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.), 2012 -Ohio- 30
END OF DOCUMENT

Trusted by Thousands of
Students

Here are what students say about us.

Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved. | CoursePaper is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.