TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Delwin J. Walker and Billie Janiece Walker, Debtors. L.D. Fitzgerald, Trustee v. First Security Bank of Idaho, N.A.

In Re Delwin J. WALKER and Billie Janiece Walker, Debtors. L.D. FITZGERALD, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FIRST SECURITY BANK OF IDAHO, N.A., Defendant-Appellant

Walker v. First Sec. Bank of Idaho, N.A., 77 F.3d 322 (1st Cir. 1996)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 26, 1996
Docket
No. 94-36182
Judges
Nelson, Noonan, Tanner
Citations
77 F.3d 32235 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 58028 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 8321996 WL 7797896 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12141996 U.S. App. LEXIS 2944

Opinion — Noonan

NOONAN, Circuit Judge:

This case presents a straightforward question which has given rise to a split in the federal circuit courts: in bankruptcy, does the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of when the transfer is perfected trump state law as to when a transfer is perfected?

We answer the question affirmatively, as has the Fifth Circuit, Matter of Hamilton, 892 F.2d 1230 (5th Cir.1990) but contrary to In re Hesser, 984 F.2d 345 (10th Cir.1993), which followed In re Busenlehner, 918 F.2d 928 (11th Cir.1990). A split exists as well among the bankruptcy courts of this circuit.

In re Loken, 175 B.R. 56, 61 (9th Cir. BAP 1994) (concluding that “varying grace periods provided for under state law are irrelevant.”

Id.

at 64 .) We agree with the BAP, the Fifth Circuit and the district court in this case.

FACTS On July 3, 1992 Delwin J. Walker and his wife Billie Janiece (the Walkers) bought a 1989 Taurus Ford from Ted’s, Inc. in Poea- *323 tello, Idaho. The car carried Florida plates. The purchase price was $10,013.50, of which $9,042.18 was to be paid with interest in 48 monthly installments. The Walkers executed a security agreement on the car in favor of Ted’s, Inc. The automobile dealer, also on July 3, assigned its security interest to First Security Bank of Idaho, N.A. (the Bank). The Walkers took physical possession of the car.

On July 6, Ted’s, Inc. sent the title documents by regular mail to the Idaho Department of Motor Vehicles (the department). There was a mistake (a “4” instead of a “U” in the motor identification number) that the department caught by comparing the Florida papers with the new papers submitted in Idaho. The papers were returned to Ted’s, Inc. for correction. The papers arrived again at the department, and on July 17 the Bank’s security interest in the car was recorded.

Less than two months later, on September 2,1992 the Walkers filed for bankruptcy. At this point they owed $8,957.18 on the ear. L.D. Fitzgerald, the trustee in bankruptcy, (the Trustee) auctioned the car off for $4,835 on June 26, 1993. The Bank’s lien, if any, attached to these proceeds. The Trustee denied that the Bank had a perfected security interest.

PROCEEDINGS On January 26, 1993 the Trustee began the present adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court to void the Bank’s lien as a preference under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544 and 547(b). The bankruptcy court entered judgment for the Trustee. On appeal by the Bank, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court. The Bank appeals to us, contending that Idaho law gave it 30 days in which to perfect the lien. In the course of oral argument the Trustee waived his state-law objections to the perfection of the lien, permitting us to focus on the federal issue.

ANALYSIS The Bank has two points in its favor: First, the property interests on which bankruptcy acts are regularly the rights recognized by state law.

Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 329 , 113 S.Ct. 2106, 2110 , 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993). Second, Idaho Code 49-510 provides as to automobile liens: “A lien is perfected as of the time of its creation if the transaction is notarized and if the filing is completed with the department or an agent of the department within thirty (30) calendar days thereafter.” The Idaho law thus gives thirty days to perfect an automobile lien and to have the perfection of the lien relate back to the date the security interest was created. In this way glitches such as occurred in this case do not prove fatal and a generous length of time is given to automobile dealers to do paper work which often, as here, involves documentation for out-of-state used cars. The Idaho statute has a sensible purpose. In this ease its application would validate the Bank’s lien.

Unfortunately for the Bank’s case, what “ ‘constitutes a transfer and when it is complete’ is a matter of federal law.”

Barnhill v. Johnson, 503 U.S. 393, 397 , 112 S.Ct. 1386, 1389 , 118 L.Ed.2d 39 (1992), quoting McKenzie v. Irving Trust, 323 U.S. 365, 369-70 , 65 S.Ct. 405, 407-08 , 89 L.Ed. 305 (1945). Congress provided when a federal bankruptcy court is to determine what constitutes a voidable transfer for bankruptcy purposes. In relevant part the Bankruptcy’s Code provides that a trustee may avoid a transfer made within 90 days of the bankruptcy petition for the benefit of a creditor on account of an antecedent debt that enables the creditor to receive more than if the transfer had not been made. 11 U.S.C. § 547 (b). The Code goes on to specify that for purposes of this section a transfer is made “at the time such transfer takes effect between the transferor and the transferee, if such transfer is perfected at, or within 10 days after, such time.” § 547(e)(2)(A). The Code gives 10 days, not 30, in which to perfect a transfer. In bankruptcy, the Code trumps the law of the state. The Bank’s lien was not perfected in 10 days. The state’s relation-back provision cannot save it.

It is objected that the bankrupt’s estate is unfairly enriched by the proceeds of the sale of the car. The reasons for the result are the error made by Ted’s, Inc. as to the *324 identification number and the lack of a credit eheck that would have found the Walkers on the verge of bankruptcy. It is not unfair that these failures should work against the responsible party or its financing institution. If 10 days is too short a period, as the auto dealers believe, their remedy is with Congress, which, in fact, in 1994, enlarged the grace period to 20 days, Publ. 103-394, effective Oct. 22, 1994, codified at 11 U.S.C. § 547 (c)(3)(B) and § 547(e)(2)(A), giving a wider latitude to auto dealers and financing institutions in future transactions.

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1996: 41998: 21999: 12001: 12008: 22009: 22015: 22016: 12020: 119962026peak 1996 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Jesus De Los Santos, Jr., Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jesus Francisco De Los Santos, and Juan De Los Santos, Individually v. Ford Motor Company and Marco Anthony Soliz, Jr. ( )No. 04-14-00562-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 22, 2015)
  2. Torgenrud v. Missoula Federal Credit Union (In re Reinertson)224 B.R. 137 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1998)
  3. USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Thacker (In re Taylor)390 B.R. 654 (9th Cir. BAP 2008)
  4. Jesus De Los Santos, Jr., Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jesus Francisco De Los Santos, and Juan De Los Santos, Individually v. Ford Motor Company and Marco Anthony Soliz, Jr. ( )No. 04-14-00562-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 29, 2015)
  5. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. v. Fink522 U.S. 211 (1998)
  6. Gaughan v. Edward Dittlof Revocable Trust (In re Costas)555 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2009)

Most recent

  1. Jason William SvacinaNo. 6:19-bk-18896 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. May 27, 2020)
  2. Reynard v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Resler)551 B.R. 835 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2016)
  3. Jesus De Los Santos, Jr., Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jesus Francisco De Los Santos, and Juan De Los Santos, Individually v. Ford Motor Company and Marco Anthony Soliz, Jr. ( )No. 04-14-00562-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 22, 2015)
  4. Jesus De Los Santos, Jr., Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jesus Francisco De Los Santos, and Juan De Los Santos, Individually v. Ford Motor Company and Marco Anthony Soliz, Jr. ( )No. 04-14-00562-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 29, 2015)
  5. Gugino v. Canyon Financial of Boise, Inc. (In re Green)410 B.R. 904 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009)
  6. Gaughan v. Edward Dittlof Revocable Trust (In re Costas)555 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2009)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Nobelman v. Am. Sav. Bank, 508 U.S. 324 (1993) 844
Barnhill v. Johnson, 503 U.S. 393 (1992) 624
McKenzie v. Irving Trust Co., 323 U.S. 365 (1945) 178
Long v. Joe Romania Chevrolet, Inc. (In re Loken), 94 Daily Journal DAR 17719 (9th Cir. BAP 1994) 25

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list