In re Mauck, Civ. A. No. 73-BK-638-R.
| Decision Date | 30 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 73-BK-638-R. |
| Citation | 378 F. Supp. 904 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
| Parties | In re Eugene Franklin MAUCK, Jr., t/a Brambleton Street Ville, Bankrupt. |
Richard S. Tilley, Roanoke, Va., for Eugene Franklin Mauck, Jr., appellant.
Lawrence C. Musgrove, Roanoke, Va., for United Virginia Bank/Security National, appellee.
This case is before the court pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed by Havnaer Supply Company (hereinafter referred to as Havnaer) from an opinion and order of the Bankruptcy Judge entered on April 23, 1974. The narrow issue presented by this appeal is whether the Bankruptcy Judge correctly concluded that Havnaer failed to satisfy the filing requirements of § 8.9-401(1)(c) of the Uniform Commercial Code of Virginia (1965) with the result that its claim against the bankrupt estate of Eugene F. Mauck, Jr., t/a Brambleton Street Ville, is unsecured.
The pertinent facts of the case have been stipulated by counsel for Havnaer and the trustee for the bankrupt. Pursuant to a conditional sales contract, Havnaer sold various equipment to the bankrupt to be used in a laundromat in the bankrupt's small shopping center known as Brambleton Street Ville. This equipment consisted of washing machines, dryers, a dry cleaning machine, a hot water boiler, utility manifolds and a folding table. In conjunction with the sale of this equipment, Havnaer executed a security agreement and filed a financing statement with the State Corporation Commission and the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke. Thereafter, when Mr. Mauck filed his petition for bankruptcy, Havnaer submitted a proof of claim based on the aforesaid sale of equipment claiming $33,738.93 as a secured debt.
The crux of the dispute in this case turns on the fact that the bankrupt's shopping center, although located primarily in Roanoke County, extends partially into the City of Roanoke. The shopping center contains a building with apartments, a convenience store and a laundromat. In addition, there is a black-topped parking lot, a sign which is a directory of the occupants, and a telephone booth. The total area covered by the shopping center is 0.63 acres, and of this area the portion which extends into the City of Roanoke is approximately 35 × 65 feet.1 The building which housed the bankrupt's business was located in the county, and his merchant's license and property taxes were assessed by the county. That part of the land within the city contains a portion of the parking lot, the sign and the phone booth.
The statutory section pertinent to the question of whether Havnaer properly filed its financing statement and thus perfected its security interest in the equipment sold to the bankrupt is § 8.9-401(1)(c) of the Uniform Commercial Code of Virginia (Supp.1973):
The issue is thus whether, in light of the aforementioned description of the bankrupt's business, Havnaer complied with the above statutory filing requirement by filing locally in the City of Roanoke as opposed to Roanoke County. There is no dispute that if Havnaer did not satisfy the dual filing requirements of § 8.9-401(1)(c) its security interest in the equipment is unperfected and subordinate to the rights of the trustee in bankruptcy.2
Havnaer argues that the bankrupt's shopping center should be considered as an integrated whole existing in two independent jurisdictions and that consequently a hypothetical creditor with an interest in whether the laundromat equipment was encumbered would be expected to check both jurisdictions for financing statements. It thus contends that the purpose of the filing requirement —notifying subsequent purchasers and creditors of existing security interests —is satisfied in this case by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Alsted Automotive Warehouse, Inc.
...was there a "class of probable potential creditors 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 The case law is clear, however, that the mere appearance of doing business at a......
-
Dominion Bank of Cumberlands, NA v. Nuckolls
...strictly to comply with the statute leaves the security interest in the equipment unperfected as against third parties. In re Mauck, 378 F.Supp. 904 (W.D.Va.1974). As against the debtors, however, the interest is perfected. The Virginia UCC provides: A filing which is made in good faith in ......
-
In re Sterling Wood Products, Inc.
...and Auto Supply, 557 F.2d 22, 23 (1st Cir. 1977); In re Bethlehem Concrete Corp., 306 F.Supp. 1047, 1049 (E.D.Pa.1969); In re Mauck, 378 F.Supp. 904, 906 (W.D.Va.1974). Although the 1st Circuit has disapproved fashioning "equitable solutions to mitigate the hardship on particular creditors ......
-
In re JJ's Home Style Laundry, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 90-10327-AT
...without notice. See Dominion Bank of Cumberlands, NA v. Nuckolls (In re Nuckolls), 780 F.2d 408, 411 (4th Cir.1985); In re Mauck, 378 F.Supp. 904, 906 (W.D.Va.1974). A trustee in bankruptcy is such a third party and enjoys priority over unperfected security interests. 11 U.S.C. § 544(a). Se......