Associates Capital Corp. v. Bank of Huntsville
| Decision Date | 21 February 1973 |
| Citation | 274 So.2d 80,49 Ala.App. 523 |
| Parties | , 12 UCC Rep.Serv. 186 ASSOCIATES CAPITAL CORPORATION v. BANK OF HUNTSVILLE. Civ. 95. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Cloud, Berry, Ables, Blanton & Tatum and Dan W. McCoy, Huntsville, for appellant.
Bell, Richardson, Cleary, McLain & Tucker and L. Tennent Lee, III, Huntsville, for appellee.
Statutory detinue was filed by Bank of Huntsville, appellee here, against Associates Capital Corporation, appellant, for recovery of a 1967 BSA Motorcycle. Within the time provided by statute, appellee filed Replevy Bond and received possession from the sheriff.
Appellant filed plea of the general issue and three other pleas. Plea 2 claimed superior title because of a perfected security interest with priority over the plaintiff. Plea 3 claimed superior title because of a perfected purchase money security interest with priority over the plaintiff. Plea 4 was in recoupment for damages for conversion. To Pleas 2, 3 and 4, plaintiff filed replication alleging a superior title arising out of a security interest perfected prior to that of defendant. Issue was joined on the replication. Trial before a jury followed. Verdict and judgment for the property sued for was entered and defendant, Associates, appeals.
Eight of the 23 assignments of error are presented in brief, some of which are argued in bulk. Those not argued in brief are considered waived. Supreme Court Rule 9. Those errors argued are directed at rulings of the court on admission of evidence, refusal of requested charges, and the answer given by the court to a juror's question after deliberation had begun.
Briefly, the tendency of the evidence was that one Marple was the owner of the motorcycle in question. He had borrowed money from the Bank of Huntsville on a note in 1968 and had executed a security agreement for a 1967 BSA motorcycle. A financing statement was filed thereon by the bank, said instrument being on a usual form, signed by Marple and by B. J. Gray. The financing statement was filed in the probate office of Madison County, Alabama, on May 23, 1968. On May 25, 1968, Marple sold the motorcycle to George Apostolas who executed a security agreement thereon to Associates. A financing statement was filed by Associates on May 28, 1968.
Appellant's assignment of error 10 charges error in the allowing into evidence of plaintiff's Exhibits 1 and 2. Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 and 2 are the same instrument, the financing statement filed by appellee in the probate office. Exhibit 1 is the copy retained by the bank. Exhibit 2 is a photostat of the original, properly certified by the Judge of Probate.
At the time of the offer of plaintiff's Exhibits 1 and 2, appellant objected to their admission on several grounds. The grounds assigned covered two pages in the transcript and were, First a sufficient address of the debtor is not shown; Second, the identification of the property attempts to show an identifying number and that number is inconsistent with the number of the property sued for; Third, the financing statement is not signed by the secured party, but is signed by B. J. Gray without indication of a representative capacity for the Bank of Huntsville; Fourth, it is not admissible prior to proof of a security agreement.
The argument in brief does not pertain to any of the grounds assigned, but consists of one paragraph contending that the exhibits were inadmissible because the description of the property thereon is insufficient as a matter of law for the purpose of notice required by § 9--402(1) and § 9--110 of the Uniform Commercial Code. No case citation is given in support of this statement.
Argument in brief cannot present as basis for reversal a ground of objection to the introduction of evidence not presented to the trial court. If specific grounds of objection are made to the introduction of evidence, all other grounds are waived. Mahone v. B'ham Electric Co. 261 Ala 132, 73 So.2d 378; Granberry v. Gilbert, 276 Ala. 486, 163 So.2d 641.
However, we deem the description of the collateral in plaintiff's financing statement sufficient under the purpose of the Commercial Code. Section 9--402 requires the financing statement to contain a 'statement indicating the types, or describing the item, of collateral.' Section 9--203, which applies to the security agreement, not the instrument involved in the present assignment of error, requires a 'description of the collateral.' Section 9--110 states 'For the purposes of this article any description of personal property or real estate is sufficient whether or not it is specific if it reasonably identifies what is described.'
The purpose of filing the financing statement is notice to any third party. The requirement of the description of the collateral is not for the purpose of informing such third party that the exact item which he is considering taking as security is already subject to a prior security interest, without further inquiry, though such could be the result of a full and complete serial number description. The requirement of 'a description that reasonably identifies' is satisfied if it reasonably informs third parties that a certain identifiable item, in this case a 1967 BSA motorcycle, belonging to or in the possession of a debtor may be subject to a prior security interest and that further inquiry is necessary to determine if it is the same motorcycle being offered them as collateral. Such is known as 'notice filing.' It merely places other parties on notice that there is need for investigation before taking as security for a loan items of the same type belonging to the debtor or which he intends to purchase. Still Associates, Inc. v. Murphy, Mass., 267 N.E.2d 217, and cases cited therein. That there are certain conditions under the Uniform Commercial Code where no filing at all is required to have a prior security interest need not be discussed here. Section 9--302(1)(d), and Section 9--302(3)(b).
Appellant next presents assignments 11, 12 and 13 in bulk. The matter complained of is that certain testimony relating to business records and transactions between the bank and Marple was allowed in evidence over objection of the appellant contrary to the best evidence rule.
The matter referred to in these assignments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dick Hatfield Chevrolet, Inc. v. Bob Watson Motors, Inc.
...did not render the security interest invalid, or that such errors were not "seriously misleading." Associates Capital Corp. v. Bank of Huntsville, 49 Ala.App. 523, 274 So.2d 80 (1973); Thomas Ford etc., Inc. v. North Ga. etc. Assn., 153 Ga.App. 820, 266 S.E.2d 571 (1980); Still Associates, ......
-
Leasing Service Corp. v. Hobbs Equipment Co.
...if it gives notice that "there is need for investigation" as to the scope of the security interest Associates Capital Corp. v. Bank of Huntsville, 49 Ala.App. 523, 526, 274 So.2d 80 (1973). The court further The purpose of filing the financing statement is notice to any third party. The req......
- Gamble v. Gamble
-
Womack v. Newman Fixture Co., CA
...so. Many cases are cited to support the above statements. For example, the first case cited is Associates Capital Corp. v. Bank of Huntsville, 49 Ala.App. 523, 274 So.2d 80 (Ala.Civ.App.1973), which held that a financing statement is sufficient if it gives notice that "there is need for inv......
-
CHAPTER 10 TITLE TO SEVERED MINERALS: A MARKETING PERSPECTIVE
...Casualty & Surety Co. v. J.F. Brunken & Son, Inc., 357 F. Supp., 290 (D.S.D. 1973); Associates Capital Corp. v. Bank of Huntsville, 49 Ala. App. 523, 274 So. 2d 80 (1973); Mountain Credit v. Michiana Lumber and Supply, Inc., 31 Colo. App. 112, 498 P12d 967 (1972); Peoples Bank of Bartow Cou......