CG Automation & Fixture, Inc. v. Autoform, Inc.
804 N.W.2d 781
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- C.G. Automation manufactured molds and dies and shipped them with identifying tags; risers attached to dies were detachable and were claimed by CG to be part of the dies; Autoform ceased operations and dies were later used by Key Plastics; CG filed UCC financing statements and sought a molder’s lien under MCL 445.619; the circuit court held there was proper permanent recording on the dies and granted possession; on appeal the court held permanent recording on dies was required and risers were not dies; the matter was remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent recording on dies is required | CG contends risers are part of the die and permanent recording on dies suffices | Defendants argue risers are not dies and permanent recording on dies did occur | Yes; permanent recording on the die is required and risers do not qualify |
| Whether a UCC financing statement is necessary for a molder’s lien | CG argued the lien attaches with recording and does not depend on UCC filing | Defendants contend UCC filing is part of lien prerequisites | Yes; both permanent recording and UCC filing are predicate requirements |
| When the lien attaches under the act | Lien attaches when the tools carry CG’s recorded information and UCC filing | Lien attaches only with proper notice as determined by statute | Lien attaches upon actual or constructive notice after complying with both requirements |
| Effect of removable risers on the lien analysis | Risers attached to dies and could be transferred; argued as part of tool | Risers are not dies and cannot satisfy the statutory recording requirement | Risers are not dies; cannot satisfy MCL 445.619(1) |
| Statutory construction of MCL 445.619(4) versus (3) | Statute requires two-step process for lien; (3) and (4) must be read together | Ambiguity possible; argument for alternative readings | Statute requires two-step process: permanent recording and UCC financing statement for an enforceable lien |
Key Cases Cited
- Gateplex Molded Products, Inc v Collins & Aikman Plastics, Inc., 260 Mich App 722 (2004) (statutory interpretation guiding molder’s lien scope)
- Delta Engineered Plastics, LLC v Autolign Mfg Group, Inc., 286 Mich App 115 (2009) (de novo review and factual clear-error standard applied)
- Robinson v City of Lansing, 486 Mich 1 (2010) (harmonious statutory interpretation guidance)
- Grand Rapids v Crocker, 219 Mich 178 (1922) (harmonization of statutory provisions)
- Maki v East Tawas, 385 Mich 151 (1971) (treatment of definitional meanings in statutory context)
- In re Plastech Engineered Prod, Inc., 418 B.R. 235 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (bankruptcy context addressing molder’s lien structure)
- Fluor Enterprises, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 477 Mich 170 (2007) (ambiguity standard for statutory interpretation)