In re Leach

6 Citing cases

  1. In re Reaster

    242 B.R. 423 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1999)   Cited 3 times

    This mistake, though apparently not caused by GreenPoint, cannot be overcome if it is considered a "major" mistake. In re Leach, 206 B.R. 903, 906 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn. 1997), citing In re Kitty Hawk Television Corp., 516 F.2d 24, 28 (6th Cir. 1975). If a different creditor is identified as the lienholder on a certificate of title, the security interest is unperfected unless the mistake is deemed "minor." Leach, 206 B.R. at 906.

  2. In re Farley

    387 B.R. 751 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2008)   Cited 6 times
    Finding that notation on title was enough to put bankruptcy trustee on inquiry notice that a lien existed

    See id. Similarly, in Schulman v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In re Leach), 206 B.R. 903 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1997), the court held that Ford Motor Credit Co. did not have a perfected security interest in the debtor's vehicle where the certificate of title mistakenly identified GMAC as the holder of the security interest. See Leach, 206 B.R. at 906 (applying Tennessee certificate of title statute, which is substantially similar to Ohio's).

  3. In re Snelson

    330 B.R. 643 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2005)   Cited 7 times

    Even in cases where an erroneous notation occurred through a clerical mistake of someone other than the creditor, courts have held that the security interests were not perfected. See e.g., Schulman v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In re Leach), 206 B.R. 903, 905-07 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1997) (mistakenly listing one creditor instead of another on certificate of title was "fatal" as to perfection); Newton v. FirstAm. Nat'l Bank (In re Webb), 106 B.R. 517, 521-22 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1989) (even though the dealership made a clerical error on the application for notation of lien, the creditor was still unperfected under Tennessee law because another bank was listed as lienholder); Waldschmidt v. Smith (In re York), 43 B.R. 36, 37 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1984) (the creditor's lien was not perfected, despite the fact that the Tennessee Department of Safety lost the creditor's application for notation of lien). The primary difference between those cases and this one is the fact that the clerical error in this adversary proceeding does not involve a mistake in the designation of the parties to the transaction, but instead, involves the description of the collateral.

  4. Reinbold v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Alvarado)

    517 B.R. 880 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    The court also distinguished the facts of its cases involving an incorrect name for the correct lienholder, from decisions avoiding a lien where the title mistakenly listed the name and address of an entirely different entity that had no connection to the transaction.See In re Leach, 206 B.R. 903 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1997) and In re Webb, 106 B.R. 517 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1989). This Court agrees with the reasoning and result in Farley.

  5. In re Bohling

    Case No. 03-30431, Adv. Proc. No. 03-3187 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Apr. 16, 2004)

    However, as the court has recently explained, based upon the clear wording of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-3-126(d), Tennessee law does not allow the requirements of this statute to be supplemented by equitable defenses. See Farmer v. LaSalle Bank (In re Morgan), 291 B.R. 795, 801-02 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2003) (citing Schulman v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In re Leach), 206 B.R. 903, 905, 907 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1997); Waldschmidt v. Smith (In re York), 43 B.R. 36, 37 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1984); Keep Fresh Filters, Inc. v. Reguli, 888 S.W.2d 437, 442 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994)). While Tennessee courts frequently recognize equitable defenses concerning its real property recording statutes, the same does not hold true for its certificate of title statutes.

  6. In re Morgan

    291 B.R. 795 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2003)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that the chapter 7 trustee could avoid a lien not properly noted on the certificate of title as of the petition date

    Assocs. Home Equity Servs., 2002 WL 459007, at *2, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 207, at *8. Conversely, cases dealing with perfection of a motor vehicle have consistently held that notation on the certificate of title is the sole method of perfection, and in fact, even in cases where notation did not occur by mistake of a governmental employee, courts have held that the security interests were not perfected. See, e.g., Schulman v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In re Leach), 206 B.R. 903, 905, 907 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1997) (mistake by creditor in name noted on certificate of title was "fatal" as to section 55-3-137(b)(1) requirements); Newton v. First Am. Nat'l Bank (In re Webb), 106 B.R. 517, 521-22 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1989) (even though dealership made clerical error on application for notation of lien, the creditor was still unperfected under Tennessee law); Waldschmidt v. Smith (In re York), 43 B.R. 36, 37 (Bankr. M.D. Term. 1984) (because perfection requires both application and notation, creditor's lien was inferior to that of the bankruptcy trustee, despite the fact that the Tennessee Department of Motor Vehicles lost the creditor's application for notation). LaSalle also argues that because First American never released its perfected lien on the Automobile, perfection was continuous between the two entities, such that First American's perfection should be subrogated to LaSalle.