U.S. v. Tugwell
| Citation | 779 F.2d 5 |
| Decision Date | 25 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1157,85-1157 |
| Parties | 42 UCC Rep.Serv. 687 UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Richard E. TUGWELL, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Richard L. Robertson, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Kenneth W. McAllister, U.S. Atty., Greensboro, N.C., on brief), for appellant.
Daniel E. Garner (Richard M. Hutson, II, Durham, N.C., on brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS and SNEEDEN Circuit Judges, and JONES, United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), a secured party holding a perfected security interest in farm equipment, sued Richard E. Tugwell for conversion after Tugwell bought the equipment from the debtor. FmHA alleged that the equipment, a grain combine, broke down during its use by Tugwell and that Tugwell has wrongfully deprived FmHA of its rights to the combine. The issue is whether, under the facts alleged by FmHA, Tugwell is entitled to summary judgment. The district court, 597 F.Supp. 486, found that although the facts technically established conversion, the case was not an appropriate one for maintenance of a conversion action and gave summary judgment for Tugwell. We reverse.
FmHA took a security interest in a grain combine owned by Thurgood M. Bradshaw as a security for loans Bradshaw owed to FmHA. Bradshaw sold the combine to Tugwell, who apparently was unaware of FmHA's security interest, without the authorization of FmHA. Tugwell used the combine for a short time until it broke down, and thereafter, he stored the machine after removing its wheels. FmHA was unable to locate Bradshaw in order to collect its loans, and therefore, filed suit against Tugwell for conversion seeking the fair market value of the combine at the time of conversion as damages. Tugwell offered to replace the wheels and tender the combine to FmHA, but only on the condition that FmHA pay him for storage expenses.
When the Government sued Tugwell for conversion, the district court granted summary judgment to Tugwell on the basis that under relevant federally adopted state law, conversion was not an available remedy to the FmHA as holder of a security interest. This appeal by the Government followed.
Federal law governs this dispute concerning FmHA's rights under a nationwide federal program. See United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 726-27, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 1457, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979). The relevant federal law is, by adoption, local state law, here the law of North Carolina, because the need for national uniformity is not great, adoption of North Carolina law will not frustrate the FmHA program, and adoption of a rule different from local law could disrupt local practice. See id. at 728-40, 99 S.Ct. at 1458-64; United States v. Friend's Stockyard, Inc., 600 F.2d 9, 10 (4th Cir.1979).
Under N.C.Gen.Stat. Sec. 25-9-306(2), FmHA's security interest continued in the combine after the sale to Tugwell because FmHA did not authorize the sale and Tugwell did not qualify for protection under Sec. 25-9-307. Official Comment 3 to Sec. 306 states that Sec. 306(2) allows the secured party to obtain satisfaction against either proceeds in the hands of the debtor or the collateral in the hands of the purchaser. The Official Comment there states that "the secured party may repossess the collateral from [the transferee] or in an appropriate case maintain an action for conversion. " (Emphasis added.)
Under North Carolina law, FmHA must prove its interest in the combine and Tugwell's unauthorized dominion over it to establish a cause of action for conversion. See Peed v. Burleson's, Inc., 244 N.C. 437, 94 S.E.2d 351, 353 (1956). FmHA's security interest in the combine is a sufficient interest to ground an action for conversion. See United States v. Pete Brown Enterprises, Inc., 328 F.Supp. 600 (N.D.Miss.1971) (applying North Carolina law); see also N.C.Gen.Stat. Sec. 25-9-306 Official Comment 3. In addition, Tugwell's act of taking possession of the combine with intent to acquire in it a proprietary interest that Bradshaw was not empowered to give represents sufficiently serious unauthorized dominion over the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marlen C. Robb & Son Boatyard v. Vessel Bristol, 93-106-CIV-4-MC.
...of damages for conversion is the fair market value of the converted property at the time of the conversion, plus interest. U.S. v. Tugwell, 779 F.2d 5 (4th Cir.1985); Marina Food Associates, Inc. v. Marina Restaurant, Inc., 100 N.C.App. 82, 394 S.E.2d 824, review denied, 327 N.C. 636, 399 S......
-
U.S. v. Walter Dunlap & Sons, Inc.
...federal rule of decision. Accord United States v. Progressive Farmers Marketing Agency, 788 F.2d 1327 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Tugwell, 779 F.2d 5 (4th Cir.1985); United States v. Public Auction Yard, Billings, Mont., 637 F.2d 613 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Southeast Miss. Liv......
-
Leggett v. Rose, 90-34-CIV-4-Mc.
...an action for conversion of chattel is the fair market value of the chattel at the time and place of the conversion. United States v. Tugwell, 779 F.2d 5 (4th Cir.1985). The conversion occurred in the summer of 1986. The best evidence of the fair market value at that time is the estate sale......
-
Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. v. Bank of New England Old- Colony, N.A.
...party obtains an immediate right to the collateral, permitting him to maintain an action for conversion. See, e.g., United States v. Tugwell, 779 F.2d 5, 7 (4th Cir.1985) (applying North Carolina law); Taylor Rental Corp. v. J.I. Case Co., 749 F.2d 1526, 1529 (11th Cir.1985) (applying Flori......