Overton v. Art Finance Partners LLC
166 F. Supp. 3d 388, 2016 WL 413128 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under UCC § 9-319(a), a secured creditor of a consignee does not gain a superior security interest in consigned goods if the consignee is generally known by its creditors to be substantially engaged in selling the goods of others. Furthermore, under UCC § 2-403(2), a merchant-purchaser will not qualify as a 'buyer in the ordinary course of business' if they fail to make a diligent inquiry despite the presence of 'red flags' indicating potential problems with the seller's title.
Facts:
- Stephanie Overton acquired sole title to six valuable artworks (Chagall, Dufy, Modigliani, Moore, Picasso, Wesselmann) following the end of her marriage.
- Beginning in 2008, Overton entrusted the artworks to Timothy Sammons, an art dealer with companies in London and New York, for purposes including potential sale, storage, and insurance.
- Sammons publicly represented himself, including on his company website, as an agent who acts on behalf of principals (buyers or sellers), rather than as a primary owner of art.
- Overton did not file any public notices, such as UCC financing statements, to record her ownership of the artworks while they were in Sammons' possession.
- Between 2014 and 2015, Sammons, acting without Overton's authorization, engaged in transactions involving the artworks with entities controlled by Andrew Rose.
- Sammons sold the Dufy, Moore, and Wesselmann artworks to Cerulean Art LLC, one of Rose's companies.
- Sammons pledged the Modigliani, Picasso, and Chagall artworks as collateral for loans from Knickerbocker Funding LLC, another of Rose's companies.
- Sammons later sold the Picasso to a third-party gallery, with Rose's companies receiving most of the proceeds to satisfy the loan, and sold the Chagall to Rose's company Cerulean, also to offset a loan.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephanie Overton filed a diversity action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (a federal trial court) against Andrew Rose and his affiliated corporate entities.
- Overton filed a First Amended Complaint asserting claims for replevin, declaratory judgment, conversion, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, and unjust enrichment.
- Overton moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaration of her ownership of five artworks and damages.
- The defendants filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on all claims related to the Picasso artwork and the unjust enrichment claim for all artworks.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a secured creditor of an art dealer have a superior interest to the original owner in a consigned artwork when the dealer is generally known by his creditors to be substantially engaged in selling the goods of others?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Shira A. Scheindlin
No. A secured creditor of a consignee does not have a superior interest to the consignor in consigned artwork under UCC § 9-319(a) when the consignee is generally known by his creditors to be substantially engaged in the business of selling the goods of others. The court granted summary judgment for Overton regarding the Modigliani, finding that the defendants' claimed security interest was invalid. UCC § 9-319(a) grants priority to a consignee's creditors only if the transaction meets the definition of a 'consignment' under UCC § 9-102(a)(20). That definition excludes transactions where the consignee is 'generally known by its creditors to be substantially engaged in selling the goods of others.' Based on undisputed evidence, including Sammons' own website and testimony from another art dealer, Sammons was generally known in the art world to be an agent selling on behalf of others. Therefore, the defendants' security interest fails, and Overton retains clear title to the Modigliani. For the other artworks, the court denied summary judgment because genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether the defendants qualify as 'buyers in the ordinary course of business' under the merchant entrustment rule, specifically concerning whether they ignored 'red flags' that would negate their good faith status.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of two distinct UCC provisions in the context of high-value art fraud. It narrowly construes the protections for creditors of consignees under Article 9, establishing that if a consignee is publicly known to be an agent (a common model for art dealers), their creditors cannot claim a superior interest in consigned goods against the true owner. This places a greater due diligence burden on those lending to art dealers. The decision also reinforces the heightened standard of good faith for merchant-purchasers under Article 2, affirming that ignoring 'red flags' can strip them of the 'buyer in ordinary course' protection, thereby preventing them from acquiring good title from a fraudulent seller. This precedent strengthens the position of original owners against both secured creditors and commercially unreasonable purchasers in cases of art entrustment fraud.
Unlock the full brief for Overton v. Art Finance Partners LLC