Crop Production Services, Inc. v. Wheeler (In re Wheeler)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 22, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that its lien had priority over the other lender’s lien. The other lender had perfected its lien with a UCC-1 but years later accidentally filed a termination statement. The lender then filed another document noting that the termination was accidental, attempting to reinstate the perfected lien. The plaintiff filed its UCC-1 later. The court holds that UCC Article 9 controls, and the termination statement could not be amended or revoked in order to reinstate the original UCC-1. Thus, the plaintiff’s secured claim had priority over the other lender’s claim. Opinion below.

Judge: Fulton

Attorney for Plaintiff: David T. Reynolds

Attorneys for Defendants: Steve Vidmer; Robert B. Frazer, Roy Massey, IV

2017-12-22 – in re wheeler

Author: Matt Lindblom

MERV Properties, LLC v. Friedlander (In re MERV Properties, LLC)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. May 4, 2015)

The bankruptcy court denies the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and dismisses the action against the individual defendant. The plaintiff attempted to serve the complaint and summons on the defendant by mailing them to “the place where the individual regularly conducts a business or profession,” pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b). The plaintiff then waited until well after the 120-day deadline to effect service and moved for default judgment. The court finds that service was not effective because the defendant did not regularly conduct business at the address at the time of the attempted service, and the plaintiff could not establish good cause for meeting the 120-day service deadline. Thus, the Court declined to extend the period for effecting service.

In a second opinion entered the same day, the Court granted motions for summary judgment in favor of the other defendants. Claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims against the individual defendants were not supported by evidence and dismissed. Claims against the bank defendant were analyzed under Article 3 of Kentucky’s UCC and also dismissed. Opinions below.

2015-05-04 – merv properties v friedlander1

2015-05-04 – merv properties v friedlander2

Author: Matt Lindblom