United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., et al.
440 U.S. 715 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Absent a controlling federal statute, the relative priority of consensual liens arising from federal lending programs and competing private liens is determined by non-discriminatory state commercial law, which is adopted as the federal rule of decision.
Facts:
- In 1968, Kimbell Foods, Inc. loaned money to O.K. Super Markets, Inc., securing the loan with the supermarket's equipment and inventory under an agreement that included a clause covering future advances, which Kimbell perfected under Texas law.
- In 1969, O.K. Super Markets obtained a larger loan from Republic National Bank, which was 90% guaranteed by the federal Small Business Administration (SBA), using the same property as collateral.
- After the SBA-guaranteed loan was established, Kimbell Foods continued to sell inventory to O.K. Super Markets on credit, creating new debts that were covered by the original 1968 'future advances' clause.
- O.K. Super Markets defaulted on the SBA-guaranteed loan, prompting Republic Bank to assign its security interest to the SBA. The supermarket's assets were then sold, creating a fund to which both Kimbell and the SBA laid claim.
- In a separate case, farmer Ralph Bridges obtained several loans from the Farmers Home Administration (FHA), secured by his farm equipment, including a tractor. The FHA perfected its security interest under Georgia law.
- Subsequently, Bridges took his tractor for repairs to Crittenden, but failed to pay the final repair bill.
- Crittenden retained possession of the tractor, thereby acquiring a mechanic's lien on it under Georgia law, creating a priority dispute with the FHA's pre-existing lien.
Procedural Posture:
- In the first case, Kimbell Foods sued in the U.S. District Court, which found in favor of the United States, applying the federal 'first in time, first in right' and 'choateness' doctrines.
- Kimbell Foods, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the trial court's decision, holding Kimbell Foods' lien was superior.
- In the second case, the United States sued Crittenden in U.S. District Court, which granted summary judgment to Crittenden.
- The United States, as appellant, appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed in part and reversed in part, fashioning a new 'federal commercial law rule' giving Crittenden's lien limited priority.
- The United States petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in both cases to resolve the conflict, and the Court granted the petitions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In the absence of a controlling federal statute, does a uniform federal common law rule or state commercial law determine the priority of contractual liens arising from federal loan programs when they conflict with private liens?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
No, state commercial law, adopted as the federal rule of decision, determines the priority. The Court reasoned that while federal law governs questions involving the rights of the United States under its nationwide programs, it is not always necessary to fashion a uniform federal rule. The Court determined that adopting state law would not hinder the administration of SBA and FHA loan programs, as these agencies already conform their practices to state law and are capable of protecting their interests like any private lender. The Court distinguished these consensual commercial loans from involuntary federal tax liens, which warrant special protective doctrines because the government is an involuntary creditor. Finally, creating a special federal rule would disrupt the stability of commercial relationships that are predicated on the certainty of state law, without a compelling federal interest to justify such a disruption.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the application of federal common law priority rules in the context of federal lending programs. It establishes that when the government acts in a commercial capacity, it is generally subject to the same state laws, like the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), that govern private parties. By rejecting the 'choateness' doctrine for these consensual liens, the Court provided much-needed certainty and stability for private creditors, who can now rely on state law priority rules without fear of being unexpectedly superseded by a federal lien. This case represents a preference for incorporating established state law as the federal rule of decision where doing so does not undermine the objectives of the federal program.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., et al.