Page 3 - John Hundley 2008
P. 3

Sharp                                                 Thinking






        No. 4                        Perspectives on Developments in the Law from The Sharp Law Firm, P.C.                February 2008

        A. Rose by any other name is not A. Rose


        Hypertechnical Approach of Courts Under Revised Article 9 Imperils Creditors

        By Mandy Combs, Mcombs@lotsharp.com, 618-242-0246

             Strict decisions being handed down by courts interpreting revised Article 9 of the
        Uniform Commercial Code (810 ILCS 5/9-101 et seq.) have sent fear running through
        creditors – or at least through those who have become aware of the hypertechnical
        approach which is being applied.

             The revisions to Article 9, which have been adopted by a majority of the states
        with minor modifications, place the burden of knowing and using the debtor’s correct
        name on the filer of a financing statement.  Moreover, in carrying out that burden,
        courts are imposing on the filer stringent requirements for correctness unusual under
        modern law.                                                                                   Combs

             Illinois adopted revised Article 9 in July 2001. P.A. 91-893 § 5.  Under it, a financing statement sufficiently
        provides the name of the debtor (1) if a registered organization “only if the financing statement provides the
        name of the debtor indicated on the public record of the debtor's jurisdiction of organization which shows the
        debtor  to  have  been  organized”,  (2)  in  other  cases  where  “the  debtor  has  a  name,  only  if  it  provides  the
        individual or organizational name of the debtor” and (3) in most cases where the debtor does not have a name,
        only if it provides the names of the partners, members, associates, or other persons comprising the debtor.  §
        9-503(a).    A  financing  statement  that  provides  only  the  debtor's  trade  name  does  not  sufficiently
        provide the name of the debtor.  § 9-503(c).
             The  statute  suggests  a  statement  with  minor  errors  is  sufficient  if  the  errors  do  not  make  it  “seriously
        misleading”.  § 9-506(a).  However, it then states that a statement is seriously misleading if it fails to provide
        the debtor’s correct name, with only one exception: If a search of the Secretary of State’s records under
        the correct name, using that office's “standard search logic”, would disclose the statement, the error in
        the name will not make the statement seriously misleading.         §§ 9-506(b)-(c).  This puts a premium on
        computer system search logic, which is not always the same as humans’ logic.

             Thus, in In re Phillips, 2007 WL 2122405 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2007), a court in Central Illinois denied a creditor
        summary judgment on the priority of its lien because there was a question of fact as to whether a search using
        the name “Phillips Farms, Inc.” would disclose the statement filed under “Phillip Farm, Inc.”  A host of similar
        rulings have occurred elsewhere:
                                                  th
             ► In re Kinderknecht, 308 B.R. 71 (10  Cir. BAP 2004), finding that use of the nickname “Terry” instead of
        the  legal  name  “Terrance”  was  seriously  misleading.    The  court found support  in  a  provision  of the  official
        forms saying the preparer should include the “Debtor's Exact Full Legal Name.”  Illinoisans should note that our
        Secretary  of  State  says  that  “all  UCC  records  must  contain  the  full  legal  name  of  the  debtor  and  indicate
        whether the debtor is an individual or an organization.”  14 ILL. ADM. CODE § 180.12.

             ►  Pankratz Implement Co. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank, 281 Kan. 209, 130 P.3d 57 (2006), finding that listing

        ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
        Sharp  Thinking  is  an  occasional  newsletter  of  The  Sharp  Law  Firm,  P.C.  addressing  developments  in  the  law  which  may  be  of  interest.    Nothing  contained  in  Sharp
        Thinking  shall  be  construed  to  create  an  attorney-client  relation  where  none  previously  has  existed,  nor  with  respect  to  any  particular  matter.   The  perspectives  herein
        constitute educational material on general legal topics and are not legal advice applicable to any particular situation.  To establish an attorney-client relation or to obtain legal
        advice on your particular situation, contact a Sharp lawyer at the phone number or one of the addresses provided on page 2 of this newsletter.
   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8