In re Bethlehem Concrete Corp.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 29710.,29710. |
| Citation | 306 F. Supp. 1047 |
| Parties | In the Matter of BETHLEHEM CONCRETE CORP., Bankrupt. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
William G. Malkames, Allentown, Pa., and Paul J. Donnelly, Philadelphia, Pa., for Firemen's Fund.
Allen E. Cobb, for Internal Revenue Service.
George Weitzman, Easton, for Trustee.
James B. McGiffert, Easton, Pa., for Conduit Concrete Foundation, Inc. and Maryland Casualty Co.
James N. Diefenderfer, Allentown, Pa., for Joseph J. Biafore.
Petitioner seeks a review of an order of the Bankruptcy Referee invalidating its security interest in certain accounts receivable. Petitioner as the secured party and the bankrupt as debtor executed a Financing Statement in which the debtor listed its address as "705 Jennings Street, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania". Said Financing Statement was filed centrally with the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.1
Petitioner concedes that its rights are governed and determined by the provisions of Section 9-401(1) (c) of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which provides:
Thus, central filing in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth and local filing in the prothonotary's office is required in those instances where the debtor has a place of business in only one county.2 The Referee has found and concluded that the bankrupt had a "place of business" in only one county, namely, at 705 Jennings Street, Bethlehem, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, and that petitioner's security interest was invalidated by its failure to have filed in the prothonotary's office of Northampton County. On the contrary, petitioner contends that the bankrupt maintained at least two other "places of business" at two different locations not confined to Northampton County and that central filing in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth was sufficient.
Said locations consisted of a job site in Montgomery County and a job site in Lehigh County. At each the bankrupt engaged in its work of pouring and placing concrete. The work performed in each instance was temporary ending with the completion of the project in question. At each a temporary facility was maintained on the premises, consisting of a job "shanty" in one instance and a job "trailer" in the other. Bankrupt was required by Union contract to maintain such facilities on the job and same were used by both management and Union employees.
The record details the use to which such "shanty" and "trailer" were put during the course of each job. It is evident that same were designed to move from job to job, were in no sense of the word permanent and except for the purposes of this litigation were not considered a "place of business" as that term is commercially and ordinarily used. Temporary, migratory and transitory facilities cannot properly be considered as constituting a "place...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Funding Systems Asset Management Corp.
...to comply with the requirement of § 9401(a)(3), where applicable, is fatal to a claim of perfection by filing. In re Bethlehem Concrete Corp., 306 F.Supp. 1047, 1048 (E.D.Pa.1969). Chemical concedes that it failed to perfect its security interests by filing. It contends, however, that it ne......
-
In re Alsted Automotive Warehouse, Inc.
...who knew of the second place of business? 491 F.2d at 23. See also In re Mauck, 378 F.Supp. 904 (W.D. Va.1974); In re Bethlehem Concrete Corp., 306 F.Supp. 1047 (E.D.Pa.1969). The case law is clear, however, that the mere appearance of doing business at a location, no matter how notorious, ......
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Joseph J. Biafore, Inc.
...of Deeds, as required by 12A P.S. § 9--401(1) (c). This order was affirmed by the district court, In the Matter of Bethlehem Concrete Corporation, 306 F.Supp. 1047 (E.D.Pa.1969). As a result of the failure of Bethlehem Concrete to perform its contracts and make payment for labor and materia......
-
In re Carmichael Enterprises, Inc.
...cases involving venue and service. They are not authority for the proposition that central filing alone is here sufficient."11 306 F.Supp. at 1049 Emphasis supplied. The Referee, and the Trustee, also relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Fairbanks Steam Shovel Co. v. Wills, 240 U.S. ......