Boyd, In re
Decision Date | 25 January 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 59061,59061 |
Citation | 658 P.2d 470 |
Parties | 35 UCC Rep.Serv. 669, 1983 OK 5 In re Larry Gene BOYD and Mera Beth Boyd, Debtors. John B. JARBOE, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PRYOR, Defendant. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA BANKRUPTCY DEPARTMENT, BANKRUPTCY NO. 81-01000 ADVERSARY NO. 81-0534.
Pursuant to the provisions of 20 O.S.1981, § 1601 et seq., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Bankruptcy Department, has certified two questions of law to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. The certified questions concern whether certain proceeds from a tort claim settlement obtained by debtor involving personal property which was subject to a security interest in favor of defendant bank constitutes "proceeds" within the meaning of Oklahoma's Uniform Commercial Code, 12A O.S.1971, § 9-306(1), and whether defendant bank had a properly perfected security interest in those proceeds on the date the debtor filed bankruptcy.
John B. Jarboe and Sidney K. Swinson, Tulsa, for plaintiff.
J. Michael Jacobs, Pryor, for defendant.
Laura Nan Pringle, Oklahoma City, for amicus curiae, Oklahoma Bankers Ass'n.
The Bankruptcy Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma has certified the following two questions of law pursuant to the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S.1981, § 1601, et seq.:
(1) Whether the One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) payment made by Allstate Insurance Company to the debtors is proceeds as defined in 12A O.S.1971, § 9-306 of the Oklahoma Uniform Commercial Code and subject to the defendant's security interest.
(2) In the event the One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) payment made by Allstate Insurance Company to the debtors is determined to be proceeds, whether the defendant had a properly perfected security interest in those proceeds on September 16, 1981, the date the debtors filed bankruptcy.
The certified questions are accompanied by a stipulation of facts between the parties which, insofar as pertinent to the first question, shows:
On April 13, 1981, debtors entered into and executed a promissory note in the principal sum of $1,718.05 together with a security agreement covering a 1971 Volkswagen in favor of defendant bank. Included in the security agreement was a provision which stated, "proceeds of collateral are also covered; however, such shall not be construed to mean that the secured party consents to any sale of such collateral." On April 14, 1981, defendant filed a lien entry form with the Oklahoma Tax Commission pursuant to 47 O.S.1981, § 23.2b, perfecting its secured interest in the vehicle.
On September 2, 1981, one or both debtors were involved in a collision with a third party who maintained liability insurance coverage with Allstate Insurance Company. Debtors and Allstate settled debtors' claim for automobile damage for the sum of $1,250.00. Before the settlement sum was paid by Allstate, debtors filed their petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on September 16, 1981. Allstate paid the settlement sum to the Trustee in Bankruptcy, who in turn released the money to defendant bank pending the outcome of these proceedings. Ownership of the fund turns on the answer to the two certified questions.
We first consider whether the settlement fund paid by a third party's automobile liability insurance carrier to debtors as a result of an automobile collision between third party and the Volkswagen which was the subject of a security interest in defendant bank and which was driven by one of the debtors constitutes "proceeds" within the meaning and coverage of 12A O.S.1971, § 9-306(1), thus establishing a prior right to the settlement fund in defendant.
Section 12A O.S.1971, § 9-306(1), in effect at the time of the automobile collision, insofar as pertinent, provides: " 'Proceeds' includes whatever is received when collateral or proceeds is sold, exchanged, collected or otherwise disposed of."
Effective October 19, 1981, and after the collision, § 9-306(1) was amended by adding: "Insurance payable by reason of loss or damage to the collateral is proceeds, except to the extent that it is payable to a person other than a party to the security agreement."
Several courts have considered whether recovery under debtor's insurance coverage for loss of or damage to personal property subject to a security interest under § 9-306(1) as constituted prior to the October 19, 1981, amendment thereof may properly be "proceeds," where the security agreement does not require the debtor to insure the personal property. While these cases are distinguishable from the case before us in that the insurer made payment under debtor's policy where in the case at bar it is the third party's insurer who makes payment to debtor under third party's insurance policy, those cases are illuminating in their consideration of the issue before us.
Quigley v. Caron, 247 A.2d 94 (Me.1968) involved the right to proceeds of fire insurance arising from destruction of debtor's crop of potatoes, which crop was subject to a security interest agreement where debtor obtained the insurance, but was not required to do so by the security agreement. The Maine Supreme Court said (p. 96):
In accord, see Peoples State Bank v. Marlette Coach Company (C.A. 10th 1964) 336 F.2d 3; Bank of New York v. Margiotta v. Sajoren, 99 Misc.2d 423, 416 N.Y.S.2d 493 (1979); Hoffman v. Snack, 37 D & C 2d 145 (Pa.1964).
In Welch v. Montgomery, 201 Okl. 289, 205 P.2d 288, 9 A.L.R.2d 294 (1949), we held that the holder of a judgment which is a lien upon real estate owned by the judgment debtor has no interest in the proceeds of a fire loss recovery by the judgment debtor under an insurance policy maintained on the property by judgment debtor where judgment debtor is not required to maintain fire insurance for the benefit of the holder of the judgment lien. Therein, we said:
Several courts have considered the issue presented in Quigley v. Caron, supra, wherein the debtor was required by the terms of the security agreement to keep the secured property insured.
In Brown v. First National Bank of Dewey (C.A. 10th 1980) 617 F.2d 581, the Court undertook to foretell the determination by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in construing the pre-amendment version of § 9-306 of Oklahoma's Commercial Code. The Court said (p. 584):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US v. One 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass, CIV 87-2297-R.
...of a lien entry form and the security agreement granting that interest contains a future advances clause. In the case of In re Boyd, 658 P.2d 470 (Okla.1983), the Oklahoma Supreme Court construed Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 23.2b and Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-306(3) (regarding when a security in......
-
Wailes v. Rocky Mountain Pre-Mix Concrete
...non-inclusion of fire casualty insurance proceeds upon loss of the secured chattel. Quigley v. Caron, 247 A.2d 94 (Me.1968); In re Boyd, 658 P.2d 470 (Okl.1983). In accord, see Peoples State Bank of Ellinwood, Kan. v. Marlette Coach Co., 336 F.2d 3 (10th Cir.1964) and Bank of New York v. Ma......
-
In re Stone
...of this section incorporates a 1972 amendment to this provision. See note 8 and accompanying text infra, for the amended language. 4 658 P.2d 470 (Okl.1983) (Certified Question of law from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma). 5 247 A.2d 94 (Me.1968). 6 222 A.2d ......
-
Installment Finance Corp. v. Hudiburg Chevrolet, Inc.
...any subsequent purchaser of the vehicle would have taken with actual notice of the security interest. See generally: In re Boyd, Okl., 658 P.2d 470 (1983); In re Cook, Okl., 637 P.2d 588 (1981); In re Foster, Okl., 611 P.2d 232 (1980). This notice also plays a part in our analysis of Hudibu......