Bob Crozier v. Stanley Wint
736 F.3d 1134
8th Cir.2013Background
- Croziers sued Wint for $82,653 on a 2004 promissory note; Wint co-signed.
- Note stated secured by a filed UCC Financing Statement; financing statement filed July 12 by Scott Miller listing collateral including trailer home, furnishings, a 1987 Chevy pickup, kennels, and dog-training equipment.
- Collateral listed; Miller couple defaulted in 2010; Croziers sold the pickup for $650; Wint was not notified of the sale.
- District court granted summary judgment for Wint, ruling the transaction secured and consumer in nature under Missouri no-notice-no-deficiency rule.
- On appeal, dispute centered on whether a security interest existed (agency/ownership issues) and whether the loan was consumer or non-consumer; the court found material fact issues and reversed.
- Court held de minimis exception to no-notice rule not established and remanded for trial on unresolved issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was a security interest created in the pickup? | Scott or Jammie ownership/agency could create lien; note and financing statement together may show security interest. | No valid security agreement; no clear agency or ownership that permits lien; entirety property issues complicate encumbrance. | Genuine issue of material fact; not entitled to judgment. |
| Is the loan a consumer transaction for no-notice-no-deficiency rule? | Primary purpose could be non-consumer given dog business; however, facts are mixed; jury should decide. | Based on mobile home use and personal aspects, likely consumer; primary purpose ambiguous but favor consumer_view would apply. | Genuine issue of material fact; not decided as consumer vs non-consumer. |
| Should a de minimis exception to the no-notice rule be adopted? | De minimis exception should apply to small unsecured elements. | Missouri law strictly adheres to no-notice-no-deficiency; no exception. | Not adopted; district court correctly declined, but case remanded for trial on other issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens State Bank of Nev. v. Davison (In re Davison), 738 F.2d 931 (8th Cir. 1984) (tenants by entirety create no separate lien without both spouses)
- Kaufmann v. Krahling, 519 S.W.2d 29 (Mo. App. 1975) (no lien arises from one spouse encumbering entirety property absent assent)
- Dierks & Sons Lumber Co. v. Morris, 404 S.W.2d 229 (Mo. App. 1966) (no agency relation when spouse does not participate beyond financing method)
- Ethridge v. TierOne Bank, 226 S.W.3d 127 (Mo. banc 2007) (harsh rule when property held by entirety encumbered without full consent)
- Shelton v. Erwin, 472 F.2d 1118 (8th Cir. 1973) (security interest requires language conveying the grant; financing alone insufficient)
- Wyatt v. Nowlin (In re Wyatt), 338 B.R. 76 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2006) (composite-document rule not followed in Missouri; require explicit language)
- Jones Mfg., Inc. v. Wortech, Inc., 91 B.R. 60 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 1988) (references to security in multiple documents may satisfy § 400.9-203(b))
- Dietz v. Hormel Emps. Credit Union (In re Cantu), 238 B.R. 796 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1999) (express language across documents can create security interest)
- Starman v. John Wolfe, Inc., 490 S.W.2d 377 (Mo. App. 1973) (financing instruments alone generally do not create security interest)
- States Res. Corp. v. Gregory, 339 S.W.3d 591 (Mo. App. 2011) (no-notice-no-deficiency rule adhered to in consumer transactions)
- Chrysler Fin. Co., L.L.C. v. Flynn, 88 S.W.3d 142 (Mo. App. 2002) (vehicle consumer status is fact-intensive; reserved for jury)
- Vantage Invs., Inc. v. Loc Nguyen Corp. (In re Vantage Invs., Inc.), 385 B.R. 670 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2008) (no-deficiency rules apply to non-consumer loans under § 400.9-626)
- Anderson v. Foothill Indus. Bank, 674 P.2d 232 (Wyo. 1984) (majority of debt used for business not personal; not consumer loan)