Farm Credit Midsouth, PCA, appeals from an October 28, 2003, judgment on the counterclaim of Fidelity National Bank entered in the St. Francis County Circuit Court. Farm Credit asserts that the circuit court erred in finding that Fidelity рerfected a security interest in certain heavy equipment that entitled Fidelity to the proceeds of the sale of the equipment. We hold that Fidelity failed to perfect a sеcurity interest. This case is reversed and remanded for further consideration consistent with this opinion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1 — 2(b)(l)(5) and (6).
Facts
This case involves a dispute over the proсeeds from the sale of heavy equipment. The equipment was sold pursuant to a court order in a foreclosure and replevin action filed by Farm Credit against Reece Contracting, Inc., and several individuals in the Reece family. Reece Contracting defaulted on a number of promissory notes held by Farm Credit and one promissory note held by Fidelity. At the time Farm Credit filed its Complaint in Foreclosure and for Replevin, on June 12, 2001, Reece Contracting had accumulated about $2,600,000 in debt with Farm Credit, which Farm Credit alleged was secured by various collateral including the heavy equipment at issue and sold in this case. About two weeks before Farm Credit filed its complaint, Reece Contracting borrowed
Under a foreclosure decree enterеd April 24, 2002, collateral, including the subject heavy equipment, was ordered sold. The heavy equipment that both Farm Credit and Fidelity claim a right to included one hydraulic excavator and four fоrty-ton articulated dump trucks. At auction, these five pieces of equipment brought $221,000, and the dispute in this case is over who has the right to the $221,000.
Farm Credit stipulated that it held no perfected sеcurity interest in the five pieces of equipment, but alleged it had a right to the equipment because it had a prior superior claim on the equipment. Farm Credit’s loans utilizing the five pieсes of equipment as collateral predated Fidelity’s loan. Fidelity, on the other hand, argued that although its loan was issued later in time, its right to the equipment trumped Farm Credit’s claim because Fidelity held a perfected security interest in the five pieces of equipment.
The circuit court entered a judgment in favor of Fidelity, concluding in relevant part:
8. That, the security interest of Fidelity in the equipment was perfected by filing Financing Statements covering the equipment both with the Arkansas Secretary of State and with the Circuit Court Clerk of St. Francis County, Arkansas;
9. That, the security interests of Fidelity in the equipment was a good and valid security interest, fully enforceable, and superior to any interest of Farm Credit in the equipment;
Standard of Review
The counterclaim at issue in this appeal was tried to the bench on April 22, 2003. Post-trial briefs were filed by both parties, and a decision was then made by the circuit court. The decision is set out in the October 28, 2003, judgement, which incоrporates an August 29, 2003, letter opinion.
With respect to matters tried with the circuit court sitting as the trier of fact, this court in Chavers v. Epsco, Inc.,
In bench trials, the standard of review on apрeal is not whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the court, but whether the judge’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Ark.R.Civ.P. 52(a) (2002); Reding v. Wagner,350 Ark. 322 ,86 S.W.3d 386 (2002); Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kennedy,347 Ark. 184 ,60 S.W.3d 458 (2001). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Sharp v. State,350 Ark. 529 ,88 S.W.3d 348 (2002). Disputed facts and determinations of credibility are within the province of the fact-finder. Sharp, supra; Pre-Paid Solutions, Inc. v. City of Little Roсk,343 Ark. 317 ,34 S.W.3d 360 (2001).
Chavers,
Perfected Security Interest
The Security Agreement section of Fidelity’s Promissory Note and Security
Farm Credit admits it does not have a perfected security interest. Fidelity alleges that it has a pеrfected security interest in the equipment. “A perfected security interest prevails over a non-perfected security interest, even if the perfecting party had notice оf the prior interest when he took his security interest.” In re Ace Management, LLC.,
“Under Artiсle 9 of the UCC, two documents are needed to create a perfected security interest in a debtor’s collateral: a ‘security agreement’ giving the creditor an interest in the collateral and a filed ‘financing statement’ providing notice to other creditors that a security is claimed in the collateral.” In re Outboard Marine Corp.,
According to the security agreement, Barbara E. Reеce held a personal interest in the subject five pieces of equipment. A financing statement must include the name of the debtor and be signed by the debtor. In re Answerfone,
Although as stated in the security agreement, Barbara was not personally liable on the loan, she did pledge her interest in the equipment as collateral in which she held a personal interest. Because Barbara pledged collateral, she is a debtor under Arkansas secured transactions law. Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-105(l)(d) (Supp. 1997); see also Davison v. Citizens Bank of Nеvada Missouri,
“The purpose of a financing statement is to alert third parties to the existence of a security interest in property held by a debtor.” Fifth Third Bank v. Comark, Inc.,
Barbara’s name does not appear on the financing statement. She did not sign it. The financing statement was therefore insufficient. A search of the financing statements would not put an interested person on notice of the security interest.
Lien Creditor
Farm Credit asks this court to determine in the first instance whether it enjoys the status of lien сreditor and on that basis whether it or Fidelity is entitled to the proceeds of the sale. Because the circuit court erroneously found Fidelity had a perfected security interest, the question of which party prevailed in the absence of the perfected security interest was not decided by the circuit court. With certain exceptions not relevant to this discussion, this court has appellate jurisdiction only, which means that it has jurisdiction to review an order or decree of an inferior court. Lewellen v. Sup. Ct. Comm, on Prof. Conduct,
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Notes
The five pieces оf equipment pledged as collateral to the Farm Credit and Fidelity notes were owned by James A. Reece and Barbara E. Reece.
We note that Barbara E. Reece’s signature appears on the “ATTACHED LIST” to the Security Agreement, and that a copy of the “ATTACHED LIST” is appended to the filed Financing Statement. However, appending the “ATTACHED LIST” containing Barbara E. Reece’s signature to the Financing Statement did not result in her appearing as a debtor in the index to the Financing Statements so as to allow an interested party to locate the pledge of her interest in the equipment.