Lexplug logoLexplug

The Four County Bank v. Tidewater Equipment Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia
771 S.E.2d 437, 331 Ga. App. 753 (2015)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under UCC § 9-515, a secured party's failure to file a continuation statement within the statutory period causes the security interest to lapse, and it is deemed to have been unperfected retroactively as against a party who purchased the collateral for value before the lapse.


Facts:

  • In June 2003, The Four County Bank ('the Bank') financed Shepherd Brothers Timber Company's ('Shepherd') purchase of a Tigercat Cutter and perfected its security interest by filing a financing statement.
  • In November 2005, the Bank financed Shepherd's purchase of a Tigercat Skidder and again perfected its security interest with a financing statement.
  • On August 30, 2007, while the Bank's security interest was still perfected, Shepherd traded the Cutter to Tidewater Equipment Company ('Tidewater') for credit towards a new purchase.
  • On June 26, 2008, while the Bank's security interest was still perfected, Shepherd traded the Skidder to Tidewater for credit.
  • Tidewater did not conduct a lien search and had no actual knowledge of the Bank’s security interests in either piece of equipment.
  • The Bank failed to file a continuation statement for the Cutter before its financing statement expired in June 2008.
  • The Bank failed to file a continuation statement for the Skidder before its financing statement expired in November 2010.
  • Shepherd later filed for bankruptcy.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Four County Bank sued Tidewater Equipment Company in a Georgia trial court for trover and conversion to recover the equipment or its value.
  • Both the Bank and Tidewater filed motions for summary judgment.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Tidewater.
  • The Four County Bank, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals of Georgia; Tidewater is the appellee.

Locked

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 party's failure to file a timely continuation statement retroactively render its security interest unperfected as against a third party who purchased the collateral for value and without actual knowledge before the perfection lapsed?


Opinions:

Majority - Branch, Judge

Yes. A secured party's failure to file a timely continuation statement retroactively renders its security interest unperfected as against a pre-lapse purchaser for value. Under OCGA § 11-9-515(b), a financing statement is effective for five years. If a continuation statement is not filed before this period lapses, the security interest becomes unperfected. The statute explicitly states that upon lapse, the security interest is 'deemed never to have been perfected as against a purchaser of the collateral for value.' Although the Bank's security interests were perfected when Tidewater purchased the equipment, the Bank's subsequent failure to file continuation statements caused those interests to lapse. This lapse relates back in time, rendering the interests unperfected against Tidewater, a purchaser for value. The court also clarified that under the UCC, 'knowledge' means actual knowledge, which Tidewater did not have. Tidewater's failure to perform a lien search is irrelevant because it had no duty to investigate and no actual knowledge of the Bank's interests.



Analysis:

This decision underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to the UCC's filing deadlines for secured creditors. It solidifies the 'relation-back' doctrine, where a lapse in perfection retroactively extinguishes a creditor's rights against intervening purchasers for value, even those who bought while the interest was still perfected. The case reinforces that the UCC's knowledge standard is 'actual knowledge,' not constructive notice, meaning a purchaser's failure to check public records does not defeat their superior claim if a creditor's perfection subsequently lapses. This creates a bright-line rule that prioritizes the certainty of the filing system over case-by-case equitable considerations.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: The Four County Bank v. Tidewater Equipment Co. (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"