Ag Law & Taxation Case Annotations :: Secured Transactions

Rabo Agrifinance, Inc., et al. v. Terra XXI, Ltd., et al., No. 08-10143, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20959 (5th Cir. Sept. 23, 2009)(plaintiff foreclosed on its security interests in defendant's farm collateral and sold the collateral at auction; statute of limitations did not bar foreclosure, no subrogation to superior lien position in some of the equipment warranted, attorney fees awarded to plaintiff).

In re Mierkowski, No. 08-3866 (8th Cir. Sept. 8, 2009)(under Missouri law, creditor (Ford Motor Co.) held a purchase-money security interest in debtor's negative equity in debtor's trade-in vehicle, and debt attributable to cash-sale price of debtor's new vehicle was secured; entire debt was secured).

In re Alvo Grain and Feed, Inc., No. BK08-80876-TLS, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 1607 (Bankr. D. Neb. Jun. 8, 2009)(genuine issue of material fact existed concerning whether use of "&" instead of "and" in debtor's name was seriously misleading under UCC Revised Article 9; lack of evidence in record as to what constituted standard search logic for Nebraska Secretary of State's UCC records and how two searchers conducting the same search could come up with different and incomplete results).

Slappey v. Slappey, et al., No. A08A1633, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 333 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2009)(plaintiff, father of defendant, had valid laborer's lien on son's cotton crop; on remand, recorded lienholder could also move to reinstate its motion for full hearing).

Farmers Cooperative Co. v. Swift Pork Co., et al., No. C 07-3056-MWB, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21000 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 16, 2009)(two-year statute of limitations contained in Iowa Code Sec. 614.1(10) applies to agricultural supply dealer's lien (Iowa Code Sec. 570A.7) rather than 5-year statute of limitation set forth in Iowa Code Sec. 614.1(4); defendant (lender) entitled to summary judgment).

Davis v. Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., No. 07-56236, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 26387 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2008)(creditor who imposes flat finance charge that does not vary with the term of a Refund Anticipation Loan need not refund a portion of the charge as "unearned interest" under 15 U.S.C. § 1615 when loan is repaid earlier than anticipated in the loan agreement; finance charge not an "interest" charge).

Bank of Dawson v. Worth Gin Company, Inc., No. A08A1400, 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 1350 (Ga. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2008)(bank's security interest in debtor's cotton crop not seriously misleading, and defendant had notice of bank's prior perfected security interest in crop).

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Siegel, No. 07-2581, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18765 (7th Cir. Sept. 2, 2008)(plaintiff sued to collect a debt that the defendant (a farmer) owed to a third party (provider of farm products and marketing services) through its grain marketing program but which the plaintiff had acquired; trial court judgment for defendant upheld; trial court did not err in finding that defendant and third party had not entered into an agreement authorizing the trading of grain futures on the plaintiff's behalf, and in finding that the third party had kept possession of corn deliveries as collateral for a loan it paid off on the defendant's behalf).

In re Western Iowa Limestone, Inc., No. 07-1968, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17210 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008)(case involves dispute between secured lender holding security interest in debtor's inventory and subsequent purchsasers of the inventory concerning which party's interest has priority; court upheld bankruptcy court's holding that subsequent purchasers were buyers in the ordinary course of business by virtue of their constructive possession of the goods which gave them priority under Iowa law).

United States v. Morawski, No. 06-13776, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61580 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 12, 2008)(plaintiff (FSA) entitled to summary judgment directing defendant to pay balance due under promissory notes and summary judgment on right to foreclose subject real estate; plaintiff defaulted on several FSA loans extended to defendant for purposes of establishing dairy operation).

Border State Bank, N.A. v. AgCounty Farm Credit Services, FLCA, et al., No. 07-3102, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16278 (8th Cir. Aug. 1, 2008)(both parties claimed security interests in assets of dairy operation – plaintiff’s interest established by promissory note executed in 2005 and defendant claimed a security interest based on loans made from 1998-2001; dairy defaulted on loans in 2003 and new investor took over dairy operation but also defaulted on loans from both plaintiff and defendant, and dairy’s assets liquidated; plaintiff claims entitlement to some of the sale proceeds based on claim that defendant’s security interest is invalid, and claims that defendant failed to give notice of asset disposition; trial court granted summary judgment to defendant; judgment affirmed – under MN law, defendant’s security interest in dairy’s collateral continued after collateral purchased by new investor; evidence presented that defendant’s debt not satisfied; claim that defendant did not properly perfect security interest not addressed by trial court and not considered on appeal; no notice of asset sale required because defendant did not “dispose” of the assets).

Kiley v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Company, No.277783, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1441 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 15, 2008)(trespass action against defendant, the holder of a mortgage on the property that permitted defendant to take any action necessary to protect property’s value and defendant’s security interest; trespass action does not require that damages be sustained; plaintiff retained title to property during six-month redemption period and defendant had no separate explicit agreement authorizing entry onto property during redemption period; while defendant had reasonable belief that farmhouse abandoned and steps needed to be taken to secure the property, placement of locking devices interfered with plaintiff’s right of exclusive possession).