See, Libco Corporation v. Charles W. Leigh, (In re Reliable Manufacturing Corp.), 17 B.R. 899 (N.D.Ill., 1981). The court does not find apposite the case In re Covey, 470 F. Supp. 1048 (D.Vt. 1979), cited by the debtor. In that case, it was successfully argued that a bank's security interest was never perfected for the reason that no application concerning the newly created lien on a vehicle was ever delivered to the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Vermont case law is unequivocal that compliance with 23 V.S.A. §§ 2042 and 2043 is the "exclusive" method of perfecting and giving notice of security interests. Northfield Savings Bank v. Nicholls (In re Covey), 470 F.Supp. 1048, 1050 (D.Vt.1979). In Covey, the District Court held that because a bank failed to apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles for a certificate of title at the time the funds underlying the lien were advanced, it did not have a perfected security interest, even though the bank was erroneously listed on the certificate of title (from a prior financing transaction).

Both decisions, Milwaukee Mack Sales and The Chief Freight Lines Company, require as a condition of perfection that the application a lienholder delivers to the Department of Motor Vehicles be complete and proper in all respects, as indeed Harvester's application on February 1, 1985 was. Compare General Finance Corporation v. Hester, 141 Ga. App. 28, 232 S.E.2d 375 (Ga.Ct.App. 1977) (when creditor failed to submit properly signed documents to Motor Vehicle Department, which returned the application, creditor was not perfected). In re Covey, 470 F. Supp. 1048 (D.Vt. 1979), cited by the trustee, presents the very converse of the instant case. In Covey the bank took a lien on the debtor's real property to secure the purchase of a truck.

See 12A Okla.Stat.Ann. § 9-312(4). In Re Manufacturers Credit Corp., 441 F.2d 1313 (CA 3 1971); In Re Covey, 470 F. Supp. 1048 (D.C.Vt. 1979); Maley v. National Acceptance Corp., 259 F. Supp. 841 (D.C.Ga. 1966); In Re Crosby, 19 B.R. 436, 33 U.C.C.Rptr. 1127 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Tn. 1982); In re Bundy, 15 B.R. 819, 33 U.C.C.Rptr. 727 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y. 1981). Two innocent parties

Also the case cannot be applied to the U.C.C. and motor vehicle code provision for the exclusive method to perfect a security interest under present statutes. Plaintiff argues that the case of In re Covey, 470 F. Supp. 1048 (D.Vt. 1979) is distinguishable because the Vermont statute provides expressly that a security interest is not valid against creditors unless perfected by notation on the title. Such express provision is not necessary because of the Oregon statutory provision that the notation on the certificate of title is the exclusive method of perfecting a security interest.

In the absence of a validly created security interest in the motor vehicle, the appellant's argument that its security interest in the truck `relates back' to the time of its creation ... is not persuasive. In Re Covey, 470 F. Supp. 1048, 1050 (D.C. Vt. 1979). Unlike the filed financing statement, the notice of lien filed with the Director of Revenue relating to a motor vehicle or trailer applies to a specific security agreement, the date of which must appear in the notice.