Sunshine Heifers, LLC v. Citizens First Bank (In Re Purdy)
763 F.3d 513 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the UCC, an agreement involving a herd of livestock that requires the lessee to maintain the herd's numerical size throughout the term is a true lease if the lessor retains a meaningful reversionary interest. The 'economic life' of the goods is measured by the life of the herd as a unit, not the individual animals, and the absence of a purchase option for the lessee is a strong indicator of a meaningful reversionary interest.
Facts:
- Lee H. Purdy, a dairy farmer, entered into a loan relationship with Citizens First Bank, granting the bank a perfected purchase money security interest in his current and after-acquired livestock.
- Subsequently, Purdy entered into several agreements titled 'Dairy Cow Leases' with Sunshine Heifers, LLC, to increase the size of his herd.
- Under these 50-month agreements, Purdy received 435 cows from Sunshine in exchange for monthly rent payments.
- The agreements required Purdy to maintain the herd at 435 head, replacing any cows that were culled, and to return that number of cows to Sunshine at the end of the term.
- The cows provided by Sunshine were identified with Sunshine's brand and a yellow ear tag, distinct from Purdy's existing herd which had white ear tags.
- The agreements explicitly stated that Sunshine retained ownership and did not grant Purdy an option to purchase the cattle at the end of the lease term.
- Due to rising feed costs, Purdy's dairy operation failed, leading him to file for bankruptcy.
Procedural Posture:
- Lee H. Purdy filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 12 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
- Sunshine Heifers, LLC and Citizens First Bank both filed motions seeking relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay to take possession of the cattle.
- The bankruptcy court found the agreements were per se security agreements, granting priority to Citizens First Bank's perfected security interest.
- The bankruptcy court denied Sunshine's motion, and the cattle were subsequently auctioned.
- Sunshine, as appellant, appealed the bankruptcy court's decision to the U.S. District Court.
- The U.S. District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision in favor of Citizens First, the appellee.
- Sunshine, as appellant, then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Arizona law, are agreements titled 'Dairy Cow Leases' true leases or disguised security agreements when the lessee is obligated for the full term to return a specific number of cattle, even if the individual cows are replaced before the lease term ends, and the agreements contain no option for the lessee to purchase the cattle?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, J.
No, the agreements are true leases, not disguised security agreements. A transaction is a disguised security agreement only if the lessor fails to retain a meaningful reversionary interest in the goods. Here, the bankruptcy court erred by focusing on the economic life of individual cows rather than the herd. The agreements required Purdy to return a herd of a specific size, making the herd—an asset with a perpetual economic life—the relevant 'good.' Because the lease term did not exceed the economic life of the herd, the agreements were not per se security agreements under the bright-line test. Furthermore, under the economics-of-the-transaction test, Sunshine retained a meaningful reversionary interest because the agreements contained no purchase option, obligating Purdy to return a valuable herd worth at least $130,500, which Sunshine was free to possess or lease to another party.
Dissenting - Drain, D.J.
Yes, the agreements are disguised security agreements. The bankruptcy court correctly determined that the relevant 'good' was the individual head of cattle, each being a piece of production equipment. Given a 30% annual cull rate, the 50-month lease term exceeded the economic life of the original cows, making the agreements per se security agreements under the bright-line test. Even if the bright-line test is not met, the economics of the transaction show it was a financing arrangement, not a lease. Purdy selected the cattle from third parties and Sunshine reimbursed him, which is tantamount to Sunshine financing the acquisition of cattle for Purdy's operation.
Analysis:
This decision provides critical guidance on applying the lease-versus-security-interest test to assets that are fungible or part of a regenerating unit, such as livestock herds. By defining the 'good' as the herd rather than the individual animal, the court sets a precedent that the economic life analysis must conform to the contractual obligations between the parties. The opinion strongly reinforces the significance of the lessor's reversionary interest, highlighting that the absence of a purchase option is a powerful, if not dispositive, factor in classifying an agreement as a true lease. This ruling will influence how financing and leasing are structured for agricultural and other industries involving rotating or self-perpetuating assets.
Unlock the full brief for Sunshine Heifers, LLC v. Citizens First Bank (In Re Purdy)