In re Fischer, No. 13-6043, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 4866 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. Nov. 18, 2013), aff'g., No. BK08-40125-TJM, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 2650 (Bankr. D. Neb. Jul. 1, 2013)

(bank filed financing statement indicating lien on debtor’s crops, farm products and livestock; almost three years later, debtor filed Chapter 12 while loan still outstanding; at time petition filed, debtor did not have growing crops or grain on hand, but did have cash proceeds of checks  from sale of prior fall’s crops; debtor received permission to cash checks and use funds to plant next year’s crop; debtor used 2008 crop proceeds to pay living expenses, pay the Chapter 12 trustee and remodel house that was later sold with court permission; no further crops were funded with proceeds subject to bank’s lien; debtor filed motion for declaration that grain harvested from 2010 and all later crop years not subject to bank’s lien; motion granted; debtor sought financing from different bank to fund purchase of heifers, but bank refused; initial bank released security interest in cattle and debtor’s present and future crops; debtor then sought operating loan from the different bank to fund planting of 2011 crop; due to various snafus, amended financing statement filed late and weed control not effective for 2011 with result that 2011 and 2012 crops impacted; debtor claimed that bank failed to timely release lien in violation of court order and automatic stay; court determined that debtor’s evidence insufficient to establish willfulness or intentional disobedience of court order, only negligence; debtor’s motion for contempt and sanctions denied; on appeal, court affirmed; while parties entered into stipulation that called for debtors to liquidate cattle and distribute proceeds in return for bank's release of security interest in cattle and present and future crops, when debtor did so in March, bank waited until mid-June to file amended UCC financing statement releasing liens which hampered debtor's ability to get subsequent loans to support 2011 and 2012 crops; debtor filed motion for contempt; court noted high standard for contempt and that order only required bank to "subsequently" filed amended financing statement; no willfulness present; debtor's contempt motion denied). 

CALT does not provide legal advice. Any information provided on this website is not intended to be a substitute for legal services from a competent professional. CALT's work is supported by fee-based seminars and generous private gifts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material contained on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Iowa State University.

RSS​ Facebook Twitter