Actual notice denies bona fide purchaser defense

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals today reversed an interlocutory order and remanded for the trial court to grant prejudgment possession of farm equipment to a company that had security interest in it even though it had been traded to another company.

In Deere & Co. v. Travis Hostetler and New Holland Rochester, No. 25A05-1006-CC-367, the appellate court was asked to determine whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied Indiana Code section 32-35-2-14 that determines essentially which party is entitled to prejudgment possession.

In 2008, Travis Hostetler entered into two contracts with Deere & Co. to buy farm equipment, with the terms granting Deere purchase money security interest in the equipment. A few months later, Hostetler sought to purchase more farm equipment from New Holland and traded two pieces of equipment on which Deere had priority perfected liens. New Holland asked Hostetler about the liens, and Hostetler said they’d been satisfied. New Holland also contacted Farmers State Bank, which said the debt to Deere had been satisfied.

However, the liens had not been satisfied and Hostetler had defaulted on his payments under the contracts with Deere. Because of that, Deere accelerated the payment obligation; Hostetler owed $268,584.04 on the first contract and $20,166.03 on the second.

Deere filed a complaint against Hostetler and New Holland for replevin, although the court noted it is actually an action to foreclose a security interest.

The trial court denied Deere’s request for prejudgment possession of the equipment in question and authorized New Holland to sell the equipment. It also required Deere to release its liens, which led to this appeal.

For a plaintiff to recover in an action for replevin, he must prove that he has title or right to possession, that the property is unlawfully detained, and that the defendant wrongfully holds possession.

“It is black letter law that, upon default, a secured creditor has the right to take possession of the collateral securing its claim and the rights set forth in the agreement with the defaulting party. I.C. §§ 26-1-9.1-601(a), -609(a)(1). Furthermore, a security agreement is effective against purchasers of the collateral. I.C. § 26-1-9.1-201(a),” wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

New Holland argued it was a bona fide purchaser because it believed the liens had been satisfied because of statements to that effect by Hostetler and Farmers State Bank.

The court noted that to be a bona fide purchaser, a party must establish it obtained property without actual or constructive notice of any adverse claims to the property. However, New Holland had actual notice of Deere’s perfected security interest, the court noted.

“As a general rule, we find that it is unreasonable to rely on the statements of third parties – or the debtor –about the current status of security interests. Specifically, Hostetler had every reason to be untruthful – and, indeed, New Holland acknowledges that it is aware that customers often misrepresent the status of liens on equipment offered in trade. Tr. p. 26-27. Although it was, perhaps, more reasonable to rely on statements made by bank employees, there is simply no excuse for New Holland’s failure to contact Deere directly. Its decision to rely on statements made by a third party removes any defense it may have had as a bona fide purchaser,” the judge wrote.

As an aside, the appellate court noted that New Holland had filed a third-party complaint against Farmers State Bank.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues