Credithrift Financial Corp. v. Guggenheim
| Decision Date | 24 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. M-194,M-194 |
| Citation | 232 So.2d 400 |
| Parties | 7 UCC Rep.Serv. 728 CREDITHRIFT FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Monroe S. GUGGENHEIM, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Black, Cobb, Cole, Crotty & Sigerson, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Snetman & Colodny, Miami, E. Clay Parker, Daytona Beach, and Dickens, Graham, Miller, Mahorner & Linn, by Benjamin H. Dickens, Tallahassee, for appellee.
This interlocutory appeal is taken from an order denying defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike in a suit brought to set aside the sale of all of the assets of Halifax Finance Company, particularly including all of its accounts receivable, to defendant-appellant, Credithrift Financial Corporation, which sale allegedly violates the Florida Bulk Transfer Article of the Uniform Commercial Code, Florida Statutes Annotated, Chapter 676.
Halifax, a licensed small loan business, obtained the cash with which it made loans by borrowing from the Commercial Bank of Daytona Beach, a defendant in this suit. The sums loaned to Halifax's customers were secured by promissory notes, which notes were in turn assigned to the Commercial Bank. Halifax also borrowed certain sums from plaintiff-appellee Guggenheim, which sums were unsecured.
In March, 1969, Halifax sold its loan business to Credithrift. Included in the sale were promissory notes held by Halifax valued at approximately $230,000, furniture and fixtures, and the operating license of Halifax. A substantial portion of the $194,500 purchase price was used by Halifax to repay the Commercial Bank. No notice of the sale was given to Guggenheim or other creditors.
The Florida Bulk Transfer Article makes ineffective against any creditor a bulk transfer not made pursuant to the statute. A bulk transfer is defined as 'any transfer in bulk and not in the ordinary course of the transferor's business of a major part of the materials, supplies, merchandise or other inventory (§ 676.9-109) of an enterprise subject to this chapter'. F.S.A. § 676.6-102(1). It is conceded that the notice and other provisions of the article necessary for a valid transfer were not met in the present transfer.
It is Credithrift's contention that the transfer by a small loan company of its notes receivable is not such a transfer as is contemplated by the Bulk Transfer Article. We agree.
The authorities are uniform in the conclusion that bulk sales acts do not apply to intangibles such as notes receivable. 168 A.L.R. 786 and cases cited therein. In applying a statute similar to ours, although not within the Uniform Commercial Code, the Texas courts have held that the bulk sales law does not encompass the sale of bills receivable or unexpired licenses. Rio Tire Company v. Spectralite, Inc., 48 S.W.2d 367 (Tex.Civ.App.), reversed on other grounds, Fischer v. Rio Tire Company, 65 S.W.2d 751 (Tex.Com.App.).
The official comment to the Uniform Commercial Code contains the following pertinent statement:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Interstate Cigar Co., Inc.
...Six's remedies are available only with respect to the transfer of covered property.") (emphasis added); Credithrift Financial Corporation v. Guggenheim, 232 So.2d 400, 401 (Fla.App.1970) ("the authorities are uniform in the conclusion that bulk sales acts do not apply to intangibles such as......
-
Ex parte Harsco Corp.
...(All Nite Garage, Inc. v. A.A.A. Towing, Inc., 85 Nev. 193, 452 P.2d 902 (1969)); and a small loan company (Credithrift Financial Corp. v. Guggenheim, 232 So.2d 400 (Fla.App.1970)). However, in many instances courts have found it quite difficult to determine by judicial notice the exact nat......
-
Jim Durio Florist, Inc. v. St. Landry Loan Co., Inc.
...cases deciding this point but we are supported by the decision of our sister states. In the case of Credithrift Financial Corporation v. Guggenheim, 232 So.2d 400 (Fla.App.1970), the court held that the Florida bulk sales law did not apply to the sale of a loan company. The court held as fo......
- Riddle v. State, M-234