GENESEE MERCHANTS BANK & TRUST COMPANY v TUCKER MOTOR SALES; EAGLE CHRYSLER-DODGE SALES, INC v GENESEE MERCHANTS BANK & TRUST COMPANY
Docket Nos. 71785, 72615
Michigan Court of Appeals
June 3, 1985
143 Mich App 339
Cynar, P.J., and R. B. Burns and R. L. Tahvonen, JJ.
Submittеd March 6, 1984, at Lansing. Leave to appeal applied for.
REFERENCES FOR POINTS IN HEADNOTES
[1] 67A Am Jur 2d, Sales § 1004 et seq. Construction and effect of UCC Article 2, dealing with sales. 17 ALR3d 1010.
[2, 3, 5] 15A Am Jur 2d, Commercial Code § 4. 69 Am Jur 2d, Secured Transactions § 476 et seq. Construction and effect of UCC Art 9, dealing with secured transactions, sales of accounts, contract rights, and chattel paper. 30 ALR3d 9.
[4, 5] 67 Am Jur 2d, Sales § 21 et seq. 69 Am Jur 2d, Secured Transactions § 286 et seq. What constitutes a transaction, a contract for sale, or a sale within scope of UCC Article 2. 4 ALR4th 85.
One who in good faith acquires a lien on goods as security for an antecedent debt is a good faith purchaser for value under the Uniform Commercial Code. A creditor who in good faith acquires a lien on goods presently ownеd or thereafter acquired as security for an antecedent debt has priority over a defrauded subsequent cash seller seeking reclamation.
Docket no. 71785 affirmed and docket no. 72615 reversed.
Cynar, P.J., dissented. He would hold that a creditor who in good faith obtains a lien upon goods as security for an antecedent debt is nоt a good faith purchaser for value as against a defrauded cash seller seeking reclamation and does not have a priority over the reclamation of the goods by the seller.
OPINION OF THE COURT
1. SALES — REMEDIES — RECLAMATION — UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.
There is in the Uniform Commercial Code an implicit right of a seller to reclamatiоn of goods sold to a cash buyer when the seller has not been paid (
2. SECURED TRANSACTIONS — PURCHASER — UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.
One who in good faith acquires a lien on goods as security for an antecedent debt is a good faith purchaser for value under the Uniform Commercial Code (
3. SECURED TRANSACTIONS — PRIORITIES — PURCHASER — LIEN CREDITOR — UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.
A creditor who in good faith acquires a lien оn goods presently owned or thereafter acquired as security for an antecedent debt has priority over a defrauded subsequent cash seller seeking reclamation (
4. SALES — GOOD FAITH — SECURED TRANSACTIONS — UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.
Good faith in the case of a merchant means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade (
5. SECURED TRANSACTIONS — PRIORITIES — SALES — PURCHASER — LIEN CREDITOR — UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.
A creditor who in good faith obtains a lien upon goods presently owned or thereafter acquired as security for an antecedent debt is not a good faith purchaser for value as against a defrauded subsequent cash seller of some of the goods seeking reclamation and does not have a priority over the reclamation of the goods by the seller (
Abbott, Nicholson, Quilter, Esshaki & Youngblood, P.C. (by Donald E. Conley and Carl F. Jarboe), for Eagle Chrysler-Dodge Sales, Inc.
Neithercut, Klapp, Shegos & Dillard (by James C. Dillard and Kittredge R. Klapp), for Gеnesee Merchants Bank & Trust Company.
Shulaw, Bowne & Omer, P.C. (by Richard A. Shulaw and Robin L. Omer), for Tucker Motor Sales.
Before: CYNAR, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and R. L. TAHVONEN,* JJ.
R. L. TAHVONEN, J. Under the Uniform Commercial Code is an unpaid cash seller‘s right to reclaim goods from the buyer superior or subordinate to the floating lien of the buyer‘s secured creditor in the same gоods?
In docket no. 71785, Genesee County Circuit Judge Judith Fullerton concluded that the lien was superior and entered summary judgment for the secured creditor. In docket no. 72615, Genesee County Circuit Judge Thomas Yeotis concluded that the right to reclaim was superior and entered judgment for the seller. We conclude that the lien is superior and therefore affirm in docket no. 71785 and reverse in docket no. 72615.
*In docket no. 71785, the parties are Fenton, Genesee Bank and Tucker Motor Sales. The essеntially undisputed facts indicate that, since 1980, the bank has financed Fenton‘s acquisition of new cars through a floor-plan agreement. To secure repayment of sums owed it by Fenton, the bank held a “floating lien” in personal property which Fenton “now has or owned or hereafter acquired“. On October 20, 1982, Tucker (also a new car dealer) sold and delivered two cars to Fenton in exchange for payment in full by check. On October 27, the checks were dishonored and Tucker demanded immediate payment or return of the cars. On the same day, bank employees discovered that Fenton was “out of trust“, i.e., cars were not in inventory for which payment had not been received by the bank. On October 28, the bank seized Fenton‘s entire automobile inventory in accordance with the provisions of the floor-plan agreement. On Oсtober 29, Tucker took possession of the two automobiles it had sold to Fenton on October 20. On November 5, the bank filed a claim and delivery action against Tucker in Genesee County Circuit Court. The bank moved promptly for possession pending judgment, GCR 1963, 757.5, or summary judgment, GCR 1963, 117.2(3). In an opinion dated May 17, 1983, Judge Fullerton granted summary judgment in favor of the bank finding that its lien was superior to any reclama-
In docket no. 72615, the involved parties are Fenton, Genesee Bank and Eagle Chrysler-Dodge Sales, Inc.
On October 20, 1982, Eagle sold six automobiles to Fenton and was paid by check. The Fenton checks were dishonored and, on October 29, Eagle demanded immediate payment or return of the cars. Much to Eagle‘s dismay, all of Fenton‘s cars had been seized by the bank the day before. On November 5, Eagle filed a complaint in Genesee County Circuit Court, Count V of which was a claim and delivery action against the bank. The bank moved for summary judgment, GCR 1963, 117.2(3), and claimed priority as secured creditor under article nine of the UCC. Eagle moved for possession pending judgment, claiming that as a defrauded сash seller its right to reclaim was superior to the bank‘s security interest. By opinion dated March 16, 1983, Judge Yeotis granted Eagle‘s motion for possession and denied the bank‘s motion for summary judgment. A corresponding final judgment was entered on July 5, 1983. From that judgment, the bank appeals as of right.
The cоnflicting trial court opinions before us are thoughtful and considered judgments as to which of two innocent parties should bear a loss caused by neither. The bank as secured creditor and the car dealers as aggrieved sellers each offer cogent policy arguments to buttress their claims for a result that accommodates their more pedestrian financial interests. However, we must be primarily guided by the Uniform Commercial Code1 which represents a legislative expression of the balance struck among competing commercial interests, expectations and values.
Given the existence of such a right, the narrower question becomes its fate when in conflict
UCC 2-702(3)7 provides:
“The seller‘s right to reclaim under subsection (2) is subject to the rights of a buyer in ordinary course or other good faith purchaser or lien creditоr under this article (section 2403). Successful reclamation of goods excludes all other remedies with respect to them.”
The very code provision that implicitly gives rise to the seller‘s right to reclaim (in subsection 2) subordinates that right to the rights of a “good faith purchaser or lien creditor” (in subsection 3).
Moreover, UCC 2-403(1)8 provides that a person with voidable title “has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value“. That code section goes on to provide that this power to transfer greater rights than those in fact acquired exists even though “delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored“. UCC 2-403(1)(b).9 The term “purchaser” includes not only those who take by sale but also those who, like the bank here, take by lien, UCC 1-201(32).10 In addition, the antecedent indebtedness of Fenton to the bank was “value” sufficient to render the bank a good faith purchaser for value. UCC 1-201(44).11 In short, if the bank acted in good faith, its rights in the collateral are superior to those of the reclaiming cash sellers under both UCC 2-702(3)12 and UCC 2-403(1).13
The UCC defines “good faith” as “honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned“. UCC 1-201(19).14 Fоr purposes of article two, the code defines “good faith” as “honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing * * *“. UCC 2-103.15
Even if the sellers’ factual claims are true, the bank acted in good faith. The mere fact that the bank mаy have known of the sellers’ claims does not constitute bad faith. The assumed existence of third party claims is the principal reason for perfecting nonpossessory article nine security interests. The basis for such interests certainly cannot establish their invalidity.
Moreover, rеpossession of the vehicles on the eve of Fenton‘s collapse does not speak of bad faith but of commercial vigilance.
We conclude that the cash sellers had a right to reclaim under UCC 2-702(2)16 because Fenton‘s right to retain the vehicles as against the sellers was conditional upon payment, UCC 2-507(2),17 which was not made. However, this right to reclaim was subordinate to the pre-existing and properly perfected article nine security interest of the bank, a good faith purchaser for value, UCC 2-403(1)18 and UCC 2-702(3).19
R. B. BURNS, J., concurred.
CYNAR, P.J. (dissenting). I dissent.
The circumstances of this case warrant consideration of the other side of the controversy revolving around the interplay between UCC 2-702(2), 2-507(2) and a properly perfected security interest. The crux of the mattеr is whether or not the seller‘s right to reclaim is subordinate to a perfected security interest. As the excellent majority opinion indicates, this continues to be an area of considerable discussion. With this in mind I would like to draw further attention to the controversy and note that a differеnt result has been reached in other cases. Especially noteworthy in this instance is In re Emery Corp, 38 BR 489; 38 UCC Rep 834 (Bankr Ed Pa, 1984). In Emery the court noted that the definitions of purchase and purchaser in UCC 1-201 were not intended to apply to this situation. The court then reasoned that, if a security interest holder is not a purchaser as to a reclaiming seller under UCC 2-702, the seller could reclaim the goods.
A case like this one presents difficult problems and I appreciate the majority‘s efforts in attempting to resolve the dispute between innocent parties as to who should bear a loss caused through the fault of neither. However, I believe the result reached by the Emery court would be the better one in this instance.
Notes
“Where the seller discovers that the buyer has received goods on credit while insolvent he may reclaim the goods upon demand made within 10 days after the recеipt, but if misrepresentation of solvency has been made to the particular seller in writing within 3 months before delivery the 10 day limitation does not apply. Except as provided in this subsection the seller may not base a right to reclaim goods on the buyer‘s fraudulent or innocent misreprеsentation of solvency or of intent to pay.”
“Tender of delivery is a condition to the buyer‘s duty to accept the goods and, unless otherwise agreed, to his duty to pay for them. Tender entitled the seller to acceptance of the goods and to payment according to the contract.”
“Subject to the provisions of this act on the effect of an instrument on an obligation (section 3802), payment by check is conditional and is defeated as between the parties by dishonor of the check on due presentment.”