Peerless Packing Co. v. Malone & Hyde, Inc.
376 S.E.2d 161, 180 W. Va. 267, 8 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 196 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Uniform Commercial Code's (UCC) priority system for secured transactions displaces the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment, and unsecured creditors who fail to utilize available UCC protections, such as obtaining a purchase money security interest (PMSI), cannot recover from a perfected secured creditor who properly takes possession of collateral in satisfaction of a debt.
Facts:
- John Kizer entered into an agreement with appellee, a wholesale grocery supplier, to take over a former A&P grocery store.
- Appellee subleased the store to Kizer, sold him equipment for $200,000, and provided $187,000 in initial inventory.
- In exchange, Kizer gave appellee a promissory note for approximately $387,000, secured by a perfected security interest in the store's present and after-acquired inventory, which also covered future advances.
- Twelve appellant companies began supplying goods to Kizer's store on open account credit but did not obtain purchase money security interests in the inventory they provided.
- By March 1983, the store was financially failing, and one of Kizer's checks to the appellee was returned for insufficient funds.
- Kizer signed a 'Notice of Default and Transfer of Possession Agreement,' voluntarily transferring all store assets, including inventory, equipment, and a $64,000 bank balance, to the appellee.
- In return for the assets, appellee released Kizer from all liability on the $387,000 secured note and an additional $54,000 unsecured debt for subsequent inventory deliveries.
Procedural Posture:
- Twelve appellant companies sued John Kizer and the appellee, a wholesale supplier, in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County (trial court), alleging unjust enrichment.
- The various lawsuits were consolidated into a single action.
- The trial court granted default judgments in favor of each appellant against John Kizer.
- At the close of the appellants' case against the appellee, the appellee moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court granted the motion for a directed verdict in favor of the appellee.
- The twelve appellant companies appealed the directed verdict to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
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 the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment allow unsecured creditors to recover from a perfected secured creditor who takes possession of a debtor's assets in satisfaction of a debt, where the Uniform Commercial Code governs the transaction and priorities?
Opinions:
Majority - Neely, Justice
No. The equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment cannot be used to defeat the priority system established by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The court reasoned that the purpose and effectiveness of the UCC would be substantially impaired if interests created in compliance with its procedures could be defeated by the application of equitable doctrines. The appellant suppliers could have protected themselves by either demanding cash on delivery or, more significantly, by obtaining and perfecting a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in the goods they delivered, which would have given them priority over the appellee's general security interest. The court also held that the transfer was not a bulk transfer requiring notice to creditors under Article 6 because it fell under the exception in §46-6-103(3) for transfers made in settlement of a security interest. This exception applied to the entire transaction, including the satisfaction of the $54,000 open account debt, because the security agreement contained a valid future advances clause as permitted by §46-9-204(3). Finally, the appellee's retention of the collateral in full satisfaction of the debt was permissible under §46-9-505, and as general unsecured creditors, the appellants had no standing to object.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the Uniform Commercial Code is a comprehensive statutory scheme intended to displace common law and equitable remedies in the commercial transactions it governs. It underscores the importance for creditors to utilize the self-help protection mechanisms within the UCC, particularly purchase money security interests, to secure their claims. The ruling provides certainty and predictability for secured lenders, confirming that their perfected interests will be upheld against claims from unsecured creditors who failed to take statutory precautions. The case serves as a crucial precedent establishing that courts will not invoke equity to reorder the clear priorities set by the UCC, absent truly egregious or fraudulent conduct.
