Bank of the West v. Doll & Doll Motor Co. (In Re Doll & Doll Motor Co.)
448 B.R. 107
Bankr. M.D. Ga.2011Background
- Two companion bankruptcy cases involve Doll & Doll Motor Company and RWD Real Estate, with shared ownership by Robert Doll and overlapping assets.
- Doll & Doll purchased equipment financed by Bank of the West Trinity Division; Bank filed a fixture filing and a waiver stating equipment would not become a fixture.
- Asset sales were approved to run concurrently: Doll & Doll assets to SE Columbus Automotive and RWD real estate to Esfahani Real Estate Holdings, LLC.
- Equipment funded by the Bank remained on RWD real estate; at least $156,511 of financed items were still located on the real property.
- Bank later moved to enforce its rights and for relief from stay ten months after sale orders were entered, arguing items are fixtures and should pass to purchasers or be removed.
- Esfahani contends items passed as fixtures via the sale orders, or, failing that, are personal property not subject to the asset sale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the financed items are fixtures under Georgia law | Bank contends items are fixtures because intended to remain with realty and not detachable. | Esfahani argues items passed through the sale orders as fixtures or are personal property not subject to the asset sale. | Items are personal property; they did not pass as fixtures. |
| Whether Bank's motions to enforce are procedurally proper and permissible | Bank seeks to enforce sale orders and recover possession or value. | Esfahani argues the relief improperly seeks money judgments without an adversary proceeding and improperly attacks final sale orders. | Motions are improper to obtain money judgments or to enforce outside the sale orders; enforcement denied. |
| Whether Bank is entitled to relief from stay in Doll & Doll case | Bank seeks stay relief to permit removal or enforcement of its security. | Esfahani asserts the equipment is either fixtures or not subject to relief from stay; seeks to preserve sale outcomes. | Relief from stay granted to the extent of Doll & Doll case; stay enjoined only as to Doll & Doll asset context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Raleigh v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 530 U.S. 15 (2000) (state law governs substance in bankruptcy claims)
- Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (1979) (emphasizes federal rule that property rights are governed by state law)
- Babson Credit Plan, Inc. v. Cordele Production Credit Ass'n, 146 Ga.App. 266 (1978) (intent of the parties crucial in fixture analysis)
- Power v. Garrison, 141 Ga. 429 (1914) (intent of parties dictates fixture status)
- Wolff v. Sampson, 123 Ga. 400 (1905) (fixture determination relies on party intent)
- Smith v. Odom, 63 Ga. 499 (1879) (fixture analysis hinges on intent)
- In re Janmar, Inc., 4 B.R. 4 (Bankr.N.D.Ga. 1979) (fixture determination generally governed by intent)
- Matter of Georgia Steel, Inc., 71 B.R. 903 (Bankr.M.D.Ga. 1987) (fixtures analysis guided by debtor intent)
- Homac Incorporated v. Fort Wayne Mortgage Co., 577 F.Supp. 1065 (N.D. Ga. 1983) (emphasizes importance of intent in fixture status)