Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. v. Stuphen East Corp., 965 F. Supp. 2d 402

Background

This is an Article 9 priority dispute over two truck chassis between consignor (Plaintiff) and a surety (Defendant) who supplied bonds to two fire districts that bought completed trucks.
Wolverine Fire Apparatus ordered chassis from Plaintiff and built two trucks for Beaverkill Valley Fire District and Forest Waverly Fire Department, but Wolverine went bankrupt before completion.
Defendant acquired the chassis from Wolverine’s bankruptcy estate, arranged for completion, and delivered the completed trucks to the Fire Districts.
Plaintiff previously moved for summary judgment; the court held Defendant’s interest was superior to Plaintiff under UCC Article 9 and the Fire Districts were buyers in the ordinary course.
Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the Dec. 18, 2012 Opinion and Order; the court denied reconsideration, finding arguments waived or meritless and reaffirming its Article 9 ruling.
The case remains closed; the decision discusses constructive possession, Article 9 priority rules, and subrogation/equitable principles.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether UCC Article 9 governs priority over the title statutes.	Plaintiff argues title statutes govern; however, the court should consider Article 9 priority.	Defendant argues Article 9 controls and Fire Districts are buyers in the ordinary course.	Yes; Article 9 governs priority.
Whether Fire Districts were buyers in the ordinary course given constructive possession.	Fire Districts did not possess or have rights to recover; thus not buyers in ordinary course.	Fire Districts had constructive possession and paid substantially; thus buyers in ordinary course.	Fire Districts were buyers in the ordinary course due to constructive possession.
Whether the stipulations with Wolverine’s bankruptcy estate affected the Fire Districts’ status.	Stipulations altered terms and undermined prior contracts, negating special status.	Stipulations released interests but did not undermine buyers’ ordinary course rights; subrogation applied.	Stipulations did not defeat status; subrogation rights preserved; arguments rejected.
Whether Plaintiff’s new arguments on rescission/anticipatory repudiation are proper on reconsideration.	New fact claims show rescission/void contracts; warrant reconsideration.	Arguments raised previously or not new; insufficient to alter outcome.	Arguments without intervening law or facts; rejected.
Whether Defendant can assert Fire Districts’ rights as subrogee even if subrogation had not attached yet.	Subrogation not yet attached; cannot assert rights.	Completing surety succeeds to obligee’s rights; equitable subrogation flexible.	Defendant may assert rights; reconsideration denied.

Key Cases Cited

Wickenhauser v. Lehtinen, 734 N.W.2d 855 (Wis. 2007) (constructive possession recognized under UCC priority analysis)