In re MOLTECH POWER SYSTEMS, INC., n/k/a Battery Park Industries, Inc., Debtor.
Moltech Power Systems, Inc., n/k/a Battery Park Industries, Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
Tooh Dineh Industries, Inc., Defendant.
United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Florida, Gainesville Division.
*676 *677 *678 Stephen R. Leslie, Tampa, FL, for Debtor.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
LEWIS M. KILLIAN, JR., Bankruptcy Judge.
THIS MATTER came before the Court for hearing on May 5, 2005, upon the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Moltech Power Systems ("Moltech"), the debtor-in-possession in the Chapter 11 case. Moltech seeks to avoid as preferences certain payments it made to creditor Tooh Dineh. 11 U.S.C. § 547(b). Tooh Dineh claims these payments cannot be avoided because they were made within the ordinary course of business. 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2). This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).
FACTS
Tooh Dineh and Moltech started doing business together in August, 1999. As Moltech's supplier, Tooh Dineh procured electronic components and assembled electronic modules, which Moltech then used to manufacture batteries. The parties continued conducting business together until the end of April, 2001. On May 23, 2001, Moltech filed its Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition.
The uncontroverted facts upon which this opinion is based are reflected in the spreadsheet of payments and invoices provided by Tooh Dineh. According to this payment history, the amount of Moltech's payments to Tooh Dineh in the time before the preference period averaged $15,097, and ranged between $90 and $77,768; over 85% of Moltech's payments to Tooh Dineh were for less than $25,000. These payments were made an average of 47 days after the date of invoice, ranging between 26 and 109 days. 82% of the payments Moltech made to Tooh Dineh were made within 60 days. In addition, Moltech made payments to Tooh Dineh in "batches" (where more than one invoice is paid with one check) throughout the course of their business relationship. Before the preference period, average batch size was about three invoices and ranged from 1-10; 82% of payments had a batch size of three or less.
During the 90 days preceding the date of filing of the bankruptcy petition, Moltech made three payments to Tooh Dineh totaling $148,323.62. Moltech concedes that, after crediting Tooh Dineh for the amount subject to the contemporaneous exchange defense and the amount for new value, the amount of net preferences is $82,474. Moltech now seeks to avoid these payments as preferences under § 547(b). 11 U.S.C. § 547(b). In response, Tooh Dineh asserts the affirmative defense of § 547(c)(2), arguing that the payments were made in the "ordinary course of business." 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2). The issue is whether the challenged payments were in fact made in the ordinary course of business. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion for summary judgment will be granted because I find the challenged payments were not made in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, may be avoided.
*679 DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7056(c) (making Fed. R.Civ.P. 56 applicable in bankruptcy cases). No genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved in this case. "In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant." Earley v. Champion Int'l. Corp.,
The trustee or debtor-in-possession may avoid any transfer of property made to or for the benefit of a non-insider creditor within 90 days of filing for bankruptcy if the transfer was made while the Debtor was insolvent, on account of an antecedent debt, and enables the creditor to receive more than it would have in Chapter 7 liquidation. 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b) and 1107. The purposes of the preference avoidance provision are to facilitate the policy of equal distribution among creditors and to frustrate extraordinary transactions which cause a race to the courthouse, inevitably resulting in dismemberment of the debtor. In re Marino,
Section 547(c)(2) provides an affirmative defense to creditors that receive payments which would otherwise be voidable preferences if those payments were made in the ordinary course of business. The burden is on creditor Tooh Dineh to establish this defense. In re A.W. & Associates, Inc.,
In order to find refuge in the ordinary course of business safe harbor, the creditor must prove: the debt was incurred by the debtor in the ordinary course of business; the payment was made in the ordinary course of business of the debtor; and, the transfer was made according to ordinary business terms. 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(c)(2)(A)-(C). This is a conjunctive test requiring the court to evaluate both the subjective business relationship as it existed between the parties, as well as objective industry standards in order to determine whether a given transaction was "ordinary." In re A.W. & Associates, *680 Inc.,
The parties do not dispute that Moltech incurred the debt underlying the challenged payments in its ordinary course of business, so § 547(c)(2)(A) is satisfied. The parties disagree as to whether the other two prongs of the ordinary course of business test have been met; that is, whether the payments were consistent with the subjective course of dealings that existed between the parties (as required by § 547(c)(2)(B)), and whether the payments were made according to objective industry standards (as required by § 547(c)(2)(C)).
The subjective, or vertical, prong of the ordinary course of business test evaluates the relationship that existed between the parties themselves and is a factintensive inquiry by nature. Lovett v. St. Johnsbury Trucking,
Under the subjective prong (§ 547(c)(2)(B)), the court will evaluate the parties' prior course of dealings, the amount of payments, the timing of payments, and the circumstances surrounding the payment. In re L. Bee Furniture Co.,
Thus, the court will examine the pre-preference period business practice that existed between the parties in order to establish the ordinary course of business. After the ordinary course of business has been established, the transactions during the preference period are compared to determine whether they were made in a similar manner. In re Empire Pipe and Development,
Courts have several mathematical tools at their disposal for establishing the ordinary course of business and comparing pre-preference transactions with preference period transactions. Most courts tend to use the range of terms that define the transaction, rather than considering only averages. In re Speco Corp.,
It must be noted, however, that analysis by range under the subjective prong (§ 547(c)(2)(B)) is different from analysis by range under the objective prong (§ 547(c)(2)(C)). Under the subjective prong of the ordinary course of business analysis, ranges should not be viewed in terms of absolute numbers between which the challenged preference period payments must fall. Rather, the range established before the preference period should be comparable to the range of payment terms during the preference period on both the low and high end to ensure that the range is not skewed by aberrational transactions. This is because common sense would seem to indicate that the court should be hesitant to embrace analysis by range when so doing would incorporate aberrations that artificially widen the range, thus presenting an inaccurate portrait of the actual ordinary course of business between the parties. See In re Speco Corp.,
Use of percentages in analysis, by the nature of the calculation itself, takes into account aberrations and variations that are skewed by use of ranges or averages. By evaluating the percentage that certain types of transactions took place between the parties, a more accurate depiction of the actual business relationship may be gleaned since the use of percentages automatically represents the degree to which such transactions were recurring.
Thus, there is no single mathematical formula the court must use. In re Daedalean, Inc.,
Once the ordinary course of business has been established, the question becomes how much preference period transfers must differ from pre-preference transactions before they become extraordinary. Courts have found that some consistency with the pre-preference period is necessary in order for the challenged payments to be held within the ordinary course of business. Lovett at 497-98 (finding that "substantial and significant delays in paying the bulk of invoices" during both the pre-preference and preference periods provided the requisite consistency). The Speco court determined that, when the creditor and debtor engaged in certain transactions on 21 separate occasions prior to the preference period, then similar transactions made during the preference period are within the ordinary course of business. In re Speco Corp.,
On the other hand, a lack of consistency between pre-preference and preference period transactions indicates that the latter were not made within the ordinary course of business. Courts have found that preference period transactions are not within the ordinary course of business when they substantially deviate from pre-preference period transactions. See In re Tennessee Chemical,
*683 In evaluating the ordinary course of business defense, the first factor is the length of time the parties were engaged in the transaction at issue. The business relationship between Moltech and Tooh Dineh lasted from August, 1999 to April, 2001 (approximately 20 months). The prepreference period lasted for 17 months, from August 13, 1999 (the date of the first invoice) to February 23, 2001 (90 days before the petition for bankruptcy was filed on May 23, 2001). This 17-month period establishes the ordinary course of business between the parties under § 547(c)(2)(B). During this pre-preference period, Moltech made 22 payments on 60 invoices to Tooh Dineh.
The second factor is whether the amount or form of tender differed from past practices. Before the preference period, over 85% of Moltech's payments were for an amount less than $25,000. The average payment amount during this time period was $15,097. The payment amounts ranged from $90 $77,768; however, reliance on range alone could result in an inaccurate depiction of the actual ordinary course of business because only 2 out of 22 payments before the preference period were for amounts greater than $40,213 (those made on October 4, 2000 and December 19, 2000, representing only 9.1% of the total payments).
In addition, Moltech made payments in "batches" (where multiple invoices are paid with one check) during the entire business relationship. 82% of the payments Moltech made before the preference period were in batches of three or less. Average batch size before the preference period was 2.95. Batch sizes ranged from 1-10 before the preference period. However, there was an unusually large batch of ten for the payment on October 4, 2000, which might be described as aberrational, as the next highest batch size was six.
The third factor is whether the debtor or creditor engaged in any unusual collection or payment activity. Moltech's invoices indicate that payment was due within 30 days. However, late payments are not necessarily outside of the ordinary course of business if paying late was historically part of the ordinary course of business that had developed between the parties before the preference period. In re A.W. & Associates, Inc.,
The fourth factor is the circumstances under which the payment was made. In this case there has been no argument that there were any special circumstances surrounding the challenged transactions. Some courts consider whether the creditor took advantage of debtor's deteriorating financial condition. In re Furrs Supermarkets, Inc.,
Having established the ordinary course of business between the parties, the transfers made during the preference period are compared for consistency. In this case, the timing and amount of payments are the primary indicators that the preference period payments were not made in the ordinary course of business.
*684 The date of delivery of the check determines the relevant date for purposes of the ordinary course of business exception under § 547(c). In re A.W. & Associates, Inc.,
The March 5, 2001 payment was for a batch of 7 invoices, made 82-91 days after the invoices, for an amount of $49,178. At first glance, the March 5, 2001 payment seems to be within the absolute range of payment amounts ($90 $77,768). However, only two payments made during the preference period were for more than $40,214. Cf. In re Speco,
The March 5, 2001 payment was for invoices 82-91 days old, which is quite different from the pre-preference absolute range of 26-109 days on the low end (compare 26 to 82). In addition, Moltech generally paid invoices within 30-76 days; when this range is compared to the March 5, 2001 payment range of 82-91, it would seem to be outside of the ordinary course of business. See Homes of Port Charlotte,
Furthermore, the change in batch size provides additional support for the conclusion that the March 5, 2001 payment was later and for a higher amount than what was ordinary before the preference period. Before the preference period, batch size ranged from 1-10; average batch size before the preference period was 2.95; 82% of the pre-preference payments were in batches of three or less. The batch size of the March 5, 2001 payment was seven. An increase in batch size of only one or two invoices standing alone is probably not enough to constitute "substantial deviation." See In re Tennessee Chemical,
The March 5, 2001 payment took substantially longer than almost all of the payments made before the preference period began. In addition, the payment was for a substantially higher amount than almost *685 all of the payments made before the preference period. Furthermore, the payment included a larger batch size than most of the pre-preference payments. In light of these facts, the March 5, 2001 payment substantially deviated from past conduct and, therefore, cannot be said to be in the ordinary course of business.
The March 22, 2001 payment was for a batch of eight invoices, made 56-70 days after the invoices, for an amount of $49,084. The payment amount of $49,084 substantially deviated from the ordinary course of business for the same reasons that the March 5, 2001 payment of $49,178 constituted substantial deviation from the ordinary course of business in terms of amount.
Whether the number of days between invoice and payment before the preference period substantially deviated from the March 22, 2001 payment presents a closer question. The March 22, 2001 payment was made 56-70 days after the date of invoices. When this range is compared to the range established before the preference period (26-109), it is apparent that the low ends of the ranges are not consistent (compare 26 with 56). In addition, only 5 of 22(23%) pre-preference payments took longer than 56 days. See Lovett,
The increase in batch size of the March 22, 2001 provides additional evidence that the payment was not made in the ordinary course of business. Like the March 5, 2001 payment, the batch size of eight is markedly higher than the pre-preference batch size (an average of three). When viewed in context, the March 22, 2001 transfer cannot be said to be in the ordinary course of business. The payment amount substantially deviated from the ordinary course of business, and the number of days between invoice and payment together with the batch size increased substantially.
The April 9, 2001 payment is quite similar to the March 22, 2001 payment. The April payment was for a batch of seven invoices, made 61-70 days after invoice, in the amount of $50,061. Based on the analysis for the March 5 and March 22 payments, this payment is also outside of the ordinary course of business. After having concluded that the March 5, 2001 payment amount of $49,178 substantially deviated from the ordinary course of business, it follows that the April 9, 2001 payment of $50,063 is also too high to be considered within the ordinary course of business. The April 9, 2001 payment, made 61-70 days after the invoices, is later than the March 22, 2001 payment already found to have been a substantial deviation. In addition, the April payment took longer than the average 47 days that payment ordinarily took, and was outside of the 60 days within which 82% of payments had previously been made. Like the March 5, 2001 payment, the batch size of seven for the April 9, 2001 payment is higher than the pre-preference batch sizes.
The factors in this case indicate that all three payments were not in the ordinary course of business. Some courts have said that only one inconsistent factor is enough to take a transfer out of the ordinary course of business. In re Laclede Steel Co.,
Finally, Tooh Dineh has argued that it had an evolving business relationship with Moltech, and therefore the preference period payments were made in the ordinary course of business as it was evolving between the parties. Obviously, the parties' relationship may evolve, but such evolution causes analytical problems in determining what the ordinary course of business actually was. There must be an established course of business to which the court can compare the transactions during the preference period. While the parties are certainly free to adjust the terms of their business relationship over time, they cannot "evolve" their course of business into a series of voidable preferences. In this case, evaluation of the course of dealings between the parties does not reveal that the characteristics of the payments just preceding the preference period changed enough to be considered "evolving."
CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated above, I find that there are no genuine issues of material fact in this case. Tooh Dineh has not met its burden of proving that the payments it received from debtor Moltech during the preference period were made within in the ordinary course of business. The payments made during the preference period substantially deviated from the ordinary course of business which had developed between the parties before the preference period in terms of amount, timing, and batch size.
Finding that the challenged payments were not made in the ordinary course of business under the subjective prong of § 547(c)(2)(B) is dispositive in this case. Therefore, it is unnecessary to determine whether the challenged transfers were ordinary according to industry standards under the objective prong of § 547(c)(2)(C). See In re A.W. & Associates, Inc.,
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
APPENDIX
TOOH DINEH INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AGING FOR MOLTECH POWER SYSTEMS, INC.
Days
Payment
Received Date Typ Reference Balance Due
42 8/13/99 INV 1848 $ 7,900.00 $ -
9/24/99 PMT 073606 $ (7,900.00)
56 11/8/99 INV 2693 $ 27.65 $ _
1/3/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (27.65)
*687
52 11/12/99 INV 2742 $ 662.04 $ -
1/3/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (662.04)
47 11/17/99 INV 2816 $ 35.60 $ -
1/3/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (35.60)
47 11/17/99 INV 2818 $ 3.24 $ -
1/3/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (3.24)
46 11/18/99 INV 2826 $ 191.76 $ -
1/3/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (191.76)
40 11/24/99 INV 2847 $ 1,176.96 $ -
1/3/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (1,176.96)
38 12/3/99 INV 2938 $ 87.37 $ -
1/10/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (87.37)
76 12/8/99 INV 2983 $ 1,262.42 $ -
2/22/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (1,262.42)
1/25/00 INV 1025 $ 7,900.00 $ -
4/20/00 ADJ 143 $ (7,900.00)
28 1/25/00 INV 3456 $ 6.47 $ -
2/22/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (6.47)
109 2/11/00 INV 3699 $ 16,818.74 $ -
5/30/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (16,818.74)
33 3/8/00 INV 4048 $ 5,519.85 $ -
4/10/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,519.85)
83 3/8/00 INV 4061 $ 5,369.65 $ -
5/30/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,369.65)
33 3/8/00 INV 4078 $ 1,000.00 $ -
4/10/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (1,000.00)
34 3/14/00 INV 4109 $ 300.40 $ -
4/17/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (300.40)
61 4/19/00 INV 4705 $ 64.72 $ -
6/19/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (64.72)
33 5/3/00 INV 4885 $ 2,346.88 $ -
6/5/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (2,346.88)
46 5/4/00 INV 4899 $ 582.48 $ -
6/19/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (582.48)
32 5/4/00 INV 4900 $ 3,154.20 $ -
6/5/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (3,154.20)
31 5/5/00 INV 4908 $ 11,039.70 $ -
6/5/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (11,039.70)
34 5/9/00 INV 4925 $ 5,144.35 $ -
6/12/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,144.35)
17 5/30/00 SN# 11471 $ 8,871.16 $ -
6/19/00 CSH XXXXXXXXXX $ (8,871.16)
4 6/15/00 CR539 $ (8,871.16) $ -
6/19/00 CSH XXXXXXXXXX $ 8,871.16
42 6/19/00 INV 5464 $ 3,811.33 $ -
7/31/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (3,811.33)
40 7/5/00 INV 5744 $ 5,519.85 $ -
8/14/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,519.85)
39 7/6/00 INV 5769 $ 3,661.13 $ -
8/14/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (3,661.13)
38 7/7/00 INV 5786 $ 5,763.93 $ -
8/14/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,763.93)
41 7/14/00 INV 5853 $ 4,693.75 $ -
8/24/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (4,693.75)
42 7/17/00 INV 58876 $ 5,388.43 $ -
8/28/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,388.43)
40 7/19/00 INV 5899 $ 5,519.85 $ -
8/28/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,519.85)
39 7/20/00 INV 5917 $ 9,312.40 $ -
*688
8/28/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (9,312.40)
65 7/31/00 INV 6045 $ 24,712.17 $ -
10/4/00 PMT 00031797 $ (24,712.17)
63 8/2/00 INV 6115 $ 7,096.95 $ -
10/4/00 PMT 00031797 $ (7,096.95)
63 8/2/00 INV 6117 $ 4,103.40 $ -
10/4/00 PMT 00031797 $ (4,103.40)
62 8/3/00 INV 6138 $ 5,744.76 $ -
10/4/00 PMT 00031797 $ (5,744.76)
61 8/4/00 INV 6146 $ 11,489.52 $ -
10/4/00 PMT 00031797 $ (11,489.52)
58 8/7/00 INV 6172 $ 5,744.76 $ -
10/4/00 PMT 00031797 $ (5,744.76)
57 8/8/00 INV 6188 $ 5,744.76 $ -
10/4/00 PMT 00031797 $ (5,744.76)
56 8/9/00 INV 6208 $ 5,744.76 $ -
10/4/00 PMT 00031797 $ (5,744.76)
51 8/14/00 INV 6266 $ 1,641.36 $ -
10/4/00 PMT 00031797 $ (1,641.36)
81 8/14/00 SN11622 $ (34.47) $ -
11/3/00 CSH XXXXXXXXXX $ 34.47
-1 8/15/00 CR623 $ (410.19) $ -
8/14/00 CSH XXXXXXXXXX $ 410.19
-1 8/15/00 CR624 $ (2,110.32) $ -
8/14/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ 2,110.32
94 9/5/00 INV 6596 $ 351.72 $ -
12/8/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (351.72)
94 9/5/00 INV 6697 $ 1,328.72 $ -
12/8/00 PMT 00031797 $ (1,328.72)
27 9/7/00 INV 6639 $ 5,744.76 $ -
10/4/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,744.76)
42 9/8/00 INV 6663 $ 5,744.76 $ -
10/20/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,744.76)
39 9/11/00 INV 6677 $ 6,584.98 $ -
10/20/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (6,584.98)
37 9/13/00 INV 6709 $ 4,474.86 $ -
10/20/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (4,474.86)
36 9/14/00 INV 6737 $ 2,900.00 $ -
10/20/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (2,900.00)
40 9/20/00 PMT 6791 $ 2,071.24 $ -
10/30/00 CSH XXXXXXXXXX $ (2,071.24)
26 10/4/00 INV 6980 $ 5,744.76 $ -
10/30/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,744.76)
26 10/4/00 INV 6996 $ 11,489.52 $ -
10/30/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (11,489.52)
38 10/10/00 INV 7067 $ 5,744.76 $ -
11/17/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,744.76)
38 10/10/00 INV 7076 $ 359.00 $ -
11/17/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (359.00)
42 10/23/00 INV 7321 $ 11,489.52 $ -
12/4/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (11,489.52)
41 10/24/00 INV 7358 $ 11,489.52 $ -
12/4/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (11,489.52)
38 10/27/00 INV 7415 $ 17,234.28 $ -
12/4/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (17,234.28)
50 10/30/00 INV 7426 $ 22,979.04 $ -
12/19/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (22,979.04)
48 11/1/00 INV 7482 $ 7,698.76 $ -
12/19/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (7,698.76)
*689
46 11/3/00 INV 7528 $ 17,234.28 $ -
12/19/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (17,234.28)
43 11/6/00 INV 7565 $ 5,744 76 $ -
12/19/00 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,744.76)
43 11/20/00 INV 7758 $ 416.73 $ -
1/2/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (416.73)
39 10/30/00 CSH SN# 12064 $ 4,220.64 $ -
12/8/00 CM CR755 $ (4,220.64)
36 11/27/00 INV 7819 $ 3,360.88 $ -
1/2/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (3,360.88)
34 11/29/00 INV 7846 $ 3,566.73 $ -
1/2/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (3,566.73)
91 12/4/00 INV 7911 $ 771.85 $ -
3/5/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (771.85)
89 12/6/00 INV 7963 $ 22,979.04 $ -
3/5/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (22,979.04)
88 12/7/00 INV 7970 $ 11,489.52 $ -
3/5/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (11,489.52)
87 12/8/00 INV 8005 $ 5,744.76 $ -
3/5/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,744.76)
84 12/11/00 INV 8030 $ 161.55 $ -
3/5/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (161.55)
84 12/11/00 INV 8031 $ 4,865.46 $ -
3/5/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (4,865.46)
82 12/13/00 INV 8071 $ 3,165.48 $ -
3/5/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (3,165.48)
70 1/11/01 INV 8268 $ 5,744.76 $ -
3/22/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,744.76)
70 1/11/01 INV 8271 $ 234.48 $ -
3/22/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (234.48)
69 1/12/01 INV 8276 $ 5,744.76 $ -
3/22/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (5,744.76)
64 1/17/01 INV 8300 $ 8,206.80 $ -
3/22/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (8,206.80)
63 1/18/01 INV 8323 $ 8,206.80 $ -
3/22/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (8,206.80)
62 1/19/01 INV 8334 $ 8,206.80 $ -
3/22/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (8,206.80)
57 1/24/01 INV 8368 $ 8,206.80 $ -
3/22/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (8,206.80)
56 1/25/01 INV 8375 $ 4,533.28 $ -
3/22/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (4,533.28)
70 1/29/01 INV 8424 $ 8,206.80 $ -
4/9/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (8,206.80)
70 1/29/01 INV 8425 $ 820.68 $ -
4/9/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (820.68)
69 1/30/01 INV 8432 $ 8,206.80 $ -
4/9/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (8,206.80)
67 2/1/01 INV 8458 $ 8,206.80 $ -
4/9/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (8,206.80)
63 2/5/01 INV 8470 $ 8,206.80 $ -
4/9/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (8,206.80)
62 2/6/01 INV 8478 $ 8,206.80 $ -
4/9/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (8,206.80)
61 2/7/01 INV 8498 $ 8,206.80 $ -
4/9/01 PMT XXXXXXXXXX $ (8,206.80)
2/9/01 INV 8522 $ 16,413.60 $ 16,413.60
2/9/01 INV 8524 $ 3,399.96 $ 3,399.96
2/12/01 INV 8535 $ 8,206.80 $ 8,206.80
*690
2/13/01 INV 8545 $ 16,413.60 $ 16,413.60
2/14/01 INV 8564 $ 8,206.80 $ 8,206.80
2/16/01 INV 8576 $ 8,206.80 $ 8,206.80
2/19/01 INV 8595 $ 8,206.80 $ 8,206.80
2/20/01 INV 8612 $ 8,206.80 $ 8,206.80
2/21/01 INV 8625 $ 8,206.80 $ 8,206.80
2/21/01 INV 8640 $ 2,147.58 $ 2,147.58
2/27/01 INV 8714 $ 3,497.66 $ 3,497.66
3/23/01 INV 8931 $ 5,744.76 $ 5,744.76
3/26/01 INV 8958 $ 5,744.76 $ 5,744.76
3/27/01 INV 8960 $ 5,744.76 $ 5,744.76
4/10/01 INV 9092 $ 3,243.64 $ 3,243.64
4/10/01 INV 9093 $ 12,486.06 $ 12,486.06
4/16/01 INV 9132 $ 21,200.90 $ 21,200.90
4/16/01 INV 9144 $ 11,489.52 $ 11,489 52
4/25/01 INV 9211 $ 195.40 $ 195.40
--------------------------------------
BALANCE DUE $ 156,963.00 $ 156,963.00