Commerce Union Bank v. John Deere Indus. Equipment Co.
| Decision Date | 22 August 1980 |
| Citation | 387 So.2d 787,29 UCC Rep. 1326 |
| Parties | 29 UCC Rep.Serv. 1436 COMMERCE UNION BANK v. JOHN DEERE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY. 78-830. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James T. Baxter, III of Berry, Ables, Tatum, Little & Baxter, Huntsville, for appellant.
John F. Proctor of Thomas & Proctor, Scottsboro, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment in the Circuit Court of Madison County for plaintiff John Deere Industrial Equipment Company as to fewer than all parties and as subsequently made final pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm.
On December 6, 1976, Commerce Union Bank entered into a security agreement with Alabama Forest Resources, Inc., covering all of Alabama Forest Resources' existing and after acquired equipment and machinery. A financing statement was filed with the Secretary of State on December 15.
Alabama Forest Resources, Inc., subsequently began doing business under the name of American Forest Resources, Inc., and under the latter name obtained possession of a JD550 crawler with limb risers and a JD 3325 power winch on August 10, 1978, from John Deere Industrial Equipment Company, pursuant to a rental agreement. The agreement contained an option to purchase and provided for ninety-one percent (91%) of the rentals paid to be applied to the purchase price. American Forest Resources exercised its option to purchase on September 11, and John Deere filed a financing statement with the Secretary of State on September 21.
On August 25, American Forest Resources purchased a 401-C loader backhoe with a 9250 hoe from John Deere. John Deere filed a financing statement on this equipment with the Secretary of State on September 5. September 4 was a legal holiday.
On May 9, 1979, John Deere filed a three-count detinue suit for personal property against Commerce Union and American Forest Resources. Commerce Union answered and counterclaimed for detinue and conversion. After a hearing, the trial court entered judgment on June 20, against the bank for the equipment and dismissed the bank's counterclaim. On July 12, Commerce Union filed a motion for new trial, or in the alternative, for amendment of judgment. An order of final judgment was entered on August 3, pursuant to rule 54(b), ARCP. Commerce Union appeals.
The first issue to be determined is whether John Deere's perfected purchase money security interest in the 401-C loader equipment should take priority over the bank's prior perfected security interest in the same collateral, when John Deere's security interest was obtained on August 25, 1978, and the financing statement was filed on September 5.
The Uniform Commercial Code, provides for the determination of priorities among competing and conflicting security interests. Section 7-9-312(4), Code 1975, provides as follows:
A purchase money security interest in collateral other than inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same collateral if the purchase money security interest is perfected at the time the debtor receives possession of the collateral or within 10 days thereafter.
Although this provision has been amended as of June 26, 1979, to allow twenty days for perfection, the transactions in question occurred prior to the amendment; therefore, the original provision governs.
Section 1-1-4, Code 1975, provides for the computation of time as follows:
Time within which any act is provided by law to be done must be computed by excluding the first day and including the last. However, if the last day is Sunday, or a legal holiday as defined in section 1-3-8, or a day on which the office in which the act must be done shall close as permitted by any law of this state, the last day also must be excluded, and the next succeeding secular or working day shall be counted as the last day within which the act may be done.
This statute has been interpreted to apply "to acts required to be done within a certain time, and not to time which must intervene before a certain status is terminated or one is brought into existence." Jones v. Duncan, 250 Ala. 587, 35 So.2d 345 (1948).
According to the statutorily prescribed method of computation, September 5 (date of filing) was, in fact, the eleventh day following August 25 (date of purchase), and, ordinarily, would have been beyond the period for perfecting under the special priority provisions. September 4 (the tenth day), however, fell on Labor Day, a legal holiday under § 1-3-8, Code 1975, which would have been excluded under the statute, thereby making September 5 the last day on which to perfect.
Commerce Union contends that § 1-1-4 is not applicable to the ten-day period in question because it is merely an intervening period, at the end of which a subsequent purchase money security interest in non-inventory collateral, will lose its preferred status over a prior perfected security interest in the same collateral, unless the purchase money security interest is perfected (by filing, here) within the ten-day period. We disagree. John Deere's filing of a financing statement on September 5 was an "(act) required to be done within a certain time . . . ." Jones v. Duncan, 250 Ala. 587, 589, 35 So.2d 345, 347 (1948). John Deere was required to file within a ten-day period to perfect its security interest and maintain its priority; therefore, § 1-1-4 is applicable. According to § 1-1-4, John Deere perfected within the ten-day period and is entitled to the special priority afforded a purchase money security interest in § 7-9-312(4).
The second issue which must be decided is whether John Deere's purchase money security interest in the JD550 crawler and the JD 3325 power winch should prevail over the bank's prior perfected security interest in the same collateral. Although American Forest Resources first obtained possession of the aforementioned equipment from John Deere on August 10, 1978, under a rental agreement, one month later on September 11, 1978, a purchase agreement for the same equipment was entered between the parties. It was not until September 21, ten days after the purchase agreement was executed, that John Deere filed a financing statement to perfect its security interest. Before this issue can be resolved, there must be an initial determination of whether the lease of August 10 was, in fact, a true lease or whether it was instead a security interest.
Section 7-1-201(37), Code 1975, defines a security interest as follows:
"Security interest" means an interest in personal property or fixtures which secures payment or performance of an obligation. . . . Unless a lease or consignment is intended as security, reservation of title thereunder is not a "security interest" . . . . Whether a lease is intended as security is to be determined by the facts of each case; however, (a) the inclusion of an option to purchase does not of itself make the lease one intended for security, and (b) an agreement that upon compliance with the terms of the lease the lessee shall become or has the option to become the owner of the property for no additional consideration or for a nominal consideration does make the lease one intended for security.
Section 7-9-102, Code 1975, the scope provision for Article 9, states:
(1) . . . (T)his article applies so far as concerns any personal property and fixtures within the jurisdiction of this state:
(a) To any transaction (regardless of its form) which is intended to create a security interest . . . .
(2) This article applies to security interests created by contract including . . . title retention contract and lease . . . intended as security.
The official comment to this section further provides:
(T)he principal test whether a transaction comes under this Article is: is the transaction intended to have effect as security? . . . When it is found that a security interest as defined in Section 7-1-201(37) was intended, this Article applies regardless of the form of the transaction or the name by which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Greene
...form used or name given to it by the parties." Ala.Code § 7-9-102 official comment 1 (1997); see also Commerce Union Bank v. John Deere Industrial Equipment Co., 387 So.2d 787 (Ala. 1980). As for Alabama's Uniform Certificate of Title and Anti-Theft Act, it enables a creditor to perfect a s......
-
State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Tele-Communications, Inc.
...619 P.2d 300; Brokers Leasing Corp. v. Standard Pipeline Coating Co. (Tex.Civ.App.1980), 602 S.W.2d 278; Commerce Union Bank v. John Deere Indus. Equip. Co. (Ala.1980), 387 So.2d 787; Southwest Park Outpatient Surgery, Ltd. v. Chander Leasing Div. (Tex.Civ.App.1978), 572 S.W.2d 53. A purcha......
-
American Standard Credit, Inc. v. National Cement Co.
...case that we have discovered in which the Alabama Supreme Court has discussed the topic is Commerce Union Bank v. John Deere Industrial Equipment Co., 387 So.2d 787, 29 UCC Rep. 1326 (Ala.1980). 7 Unfortunately, however, Commercial Union Bank in largely inapposite, for it deals only with th......
-
Leasing Service Corp. v. River City Const., Inc.
...Inc. v. National Cement Co., 5 Cir.1981, 643 F.2d 248; Matter of Tillery, 5 Cir.1978, 571 F.2d 1361; Commerce Union Bank v. John Deere Industrial Equipment Company, Ala.1980, 387 So.2d 787; In re Alpha Creamery Co., 4 U.C.C.R.S. 794 (W.D.Mich.1967). In these cases, courts went behind the te......