Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-06062/USCOURTS-ca8-06-06062-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-6062 NE

 

In re: *

*

Michael R. Borden and *

Rhonda F. Borden, *

*

Debtors. *

*

Bellamy’s Inc., * Appeal from the United States

* Bankruptcy Court for the

Creditor - Appellant, * District of Nebraska

*

v. *

*

Genoa National Bank, *

*

Creditor - Appellee, *

 

Submitted: February 9, 2007

Filed: March 9, 2007

 

Before KRESSEL, Chief Judge, SCHERMER, and VENTERS, Bankruptcy Judges

SCHERMER, Bankruptcy Judge

Bellamy’s Inc. (“Artisan”) appeals the bankruptcy court’s order determining

that the lien of Genoa National Bank (“Lender”) in certain farm equipment owned by

Appellate Case: 06-6062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286552
2

Michael R. Borden (“Debtor”) takes priority over the Artisan’s lien in the same

equipment. We have jurisdiction over this appeal from the final order of the

bankruptcy court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(b). For the reasons set forth below, we

reverse.

ISSUE

This case involves a priority dispute between two lienholders: the Lender who

asserts a first priority blanket lien on all of the personal property of the Debtor and his

wife, and the Artisan who asserts an artisan’s lien on certain equipment by virtue of

repairs to the equipment. After filing bankruptcy, the Debtor took the equipment from

the Artisan without authority, used it in his farming operations, and later returned the

equipment to the Artisan’s possession. The question on appeal is whether the Artisan

has a lien which takes priority over the Lender’s lien. In order to answer this question,

we must determine if the Artisan lost its lien when the Debtor removed the equipment

from the Artisan’s possession and what impact, if any, the Debtor’s post-petition

return of the equipment to the Artisan had on its lien. We conclude that the Artisan

did not lose its lien when the Debtor took the equipment from its possession, that the

Debtor’s return of the equipment was not necessary for the Artisan to have a lien, and

that the Artisan’s lien has priority over the Lender’s blanket lien.

BACKGROUND

On June 25, 2002, the Debtor and his wife granted the Lender a blanket security

interest on all of their personal property, including machinery and equipment then

owned and thereafter acquired. The Lender perfected its security interest by filing a

UCC financing statement with the Nebraska Secretary of State on June 26, 2002.

On separate occasions in late 2004, the Debtor took a certain cornhead and a

certain tractor (collectively the “Equipment”) to the Artisan for repairs. The Artisan

Appellate Case: 06-6062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286552
3

performed the repairs and in February 2005 sent the Debtor a bill in the amount of

$3,811.46 for the work performed on the cornhead and in March 2005 sent a bill in

the amount of $1,281.34 for the work performed on the tractor. The Debtor did not

have the money to pay for the repairs and the Artisan refused to release the Equipment

to the Debtor without payment, so the Equipment remained in the Artisan’s

possession.

On April 1, 2005 (“Petition Date”), the Debtor and his wife filed a joint

voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code. The

Equipment was in the Artisan’s possession on the Petition Date. In June 2005, the

Debtor took the tractor from the Artisan’s lot without permission, drove it to his farm,

and used it in connection with his farming operations. The Artisan discovered the

tractor was missing and contacted the Debtor to inquire if he had it in his possession.

The Debtor admitted that he had taken the tractor, explained that he needed it for his

farming operations, and agreed to return it to the Artisan as soon as he was finished

using it. The tractor broke down while the Debtor was using it. Nevertheless, the

Debtor returned the tractor to the Artisan in the fall of 2005.

In September 2005, the Debtor took the cornhead from the Artisan’s lot without

permission. The Artisan became aware that the cornhead was missing and contacted

the Debtor regarding its whereabouts. The Debtor admitted that he had taken the

cornhead, explained that he was using it to harvest corn, and agreed to return it as

soon as he completed harvesting the crop. The Debtor returned the cornhead to the

Artisan in November 2005.

In April 2006, the Lender filed a motion to determine the priority of the

respective liens asserted by the Lender and the Artisan in the Equipment. The

bankruptcy court determined that no controlling law existed in Nebraska governing

the situation of competing liens where an artisan loses possession of the personal

property through action of the property owner. The bankruptcy court looked to other

Appellate Case: 06-6062 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286552
4

jurisdictions for guidance and found that other courts faced with the issue had reached

conflicting results. The bankruptcy court decided that the Lender’s lien had priority

over the lien asserted by the Artisan. In reaching its decision, the bankruptcy court

concluded that continuous possession is required to maintain an artisan’s lien.

Alternatively, the bankruptcy court held that even if continuous possession is not

required, the automatic stay prevented the Artisan from regaining possession of the

Equipment post-petition. Therefore the Artisan could not have had a possessory

artisan’s lien. The Artisan filed a motion to reconsider which was denied by the

bankruptcy court. The Artisan appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The facts are not in dispute. We review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of

law de novo. Dapec, Inc. v. Small Bus. Admin., U.S. (In re MBA Poultry, L.L.C.), 291

F.3d 528, 533 (8th Cir. 2002).

DISCUSSION

Nebraska law provides a lien to any person who repairs a vehicle, machinery,

or a farm implement while in such person’s possession for the reasonable or agreed

charges for the work done or materials furnished on or to such vehicle, machinery, or

farm implement and authorizes the artisan to retain possession of the property until

the charges are paid. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 52-201. Such a lien is referred to as an

artisan’s lien. Nebraska law also recognizes a possessory lien as an interest, other

than a security interest or an agricultural lien, which secures payment or performance

of an obligation for services or materials furnished with respect to goods by a person

in the ordinary course of such person’s business which is created by statute or rule in

favor of the person and whose effectiveness depends on the person’s possession of the

goods. Neb. Rev. Stat. U.C.C. § 9-333(a). An artisan’s lien falls within this definition

of possessory lien under Nebraska law. A possessory lien on goods, such as an

Appellate Case: 06-6062 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286552
5

artisan’s lien, has priority over a security interest in the goods unless the possessory

lien is created by a statute that expressly provides otherwise. Neb. Rev. Stat. U.C.C.

§ 9-333(b). The artisan’s lien statute does not provide otherwise; accordingly, an

artisan’s lien has priority over a previously perfected security interest in the same

goods. 

In order to determine the respective rights of the Lender and the Artisan in the

Equipment, we must determine if the Artisan has an artisan’s lien in the Equipment

under Nebraska law. If the Artisan does, its lien has priority over the Lender’s

security interest in the Equipment. In making this determination, we must answer the

difficult question of whether the Artisan has a possessory lien where it involuntarily

lost and later regained possession of the Equipment without court authority following

the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing. The statute is silent on this situation and no Nebraska

court has addressed this situation other than the trial court below.

Courts from other jurisdictions have addressed various situations where artisans

have lost possession of the personal property to which they provided services yet

asserted a lien thereon either without possession or after regaining possession. Some

general rules can be gleaned from the case law. First, possession is generally required

for a possessory lien. Mack Fin. Corp. v. Peterbilt of Chattanooga, Inc. (In re Glenn),

20 B.R. 98, 99-100 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1982); Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v.

Colwell Diesel Serv. & Garage, Inc., 302 A.2d 595, 597 (Me. 1973); Yellow Mfg.

Acceptance Corp. v. Bristol, 236 P.2d 939, 946 (Or. 1951). If an artisan surrenders

possession, the artisan no longer has a possessory lien with priority over pre-existing

security interests. Yellow Mfg. Acceptance Corp. v. Bristol, 236 P.2d at 946. Some

courts recognize a continuing lien as between the artisan and the owner after return

of possession to the owner; however, such lien lacks priority over pre-existing security

interests. Forrest Cate Ford, Inc. v. Fryar, 465 S.W.2d 882, 883-84 (Tenn. Ct. App.

1971); Yellow Mfg. Acceptance Corp. v. Bristol, 236 P.2d at 946-47. Other courts

relegate the lien to a state of suspended animation upon release of the goods to the

Appellate Case: 06-6062 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286552
6

owner; the artisan cannot enforce the lien while it is in a state of suspended animation.

Gordon v. Sullivan, 188 F. 2d 980, 981-82 (D.C. Cir. 1951). In this situation, if the

artisan regains possession lawfully, the ability to enforce the artisan’s lien is once

again available to the artisan. Id. at 982. 

Where the artisan loses possession involuntarily, the artisan does not

necessarily lose the artisan’s lien. Smith v. Cooper Chevrolet, Inc., 404 So.2d 49, 51

(Ala. 1981); Finch v. Miller, 531 P.2d 892, 893 (Or. 1975)(en banc); Gen. Motors

Acceptance Corp. v. Colwell Diesel Serv. & Garage, Inc., 302 A.2d at 597; Yellow

Mfg. Acceptance Corp. v. Bristol, 236 P.2d at 947. Likewise, a conditional release of

goods does not necessarily defeat the artisan’s lien. Smith v. Cooper Chevrolet, Inc.,

404 So.2d at 51. This result follows at least with respect to holders of prior security

interests who are not impaired by the conditional release. M & I W. State Bank v.

Wilson, 493 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). Some courts hold that an

artisan’s lien lost when possession is lost is revived upon resumption of possession.

Such a lien retains its priority as before the release except that the lien is subordinate

to the interests of a bona fide purchaser or a creditor who attached or levied on the

property while it was in the possession of the owner. M & I W. State Bank v. Wilson,

493 N.W.2d at 390. The M & I Western State Bank v. Wilson court expressly held that

continuous or retained possession is not required. Id. at 392. See also Thorp

Commercial Corp. v. Mississippi Road Supply Co., 348 So. 2d 1016 (Miss. 1977),

holding that where there was no change in the status or rights of the parties between

the date personal property was delivered to the owner and the date it was returned to

the artisan, the prior lender was not prejudiced by the restoration of the artisan’s lien

which had priority over the pre-existing security interest.

We conclude that the Artisan did not lose its artisan’s lien in the Equipment

when the Debtor took the Equipment without the Artisan’s knowledge or consent.

Such involuntary loss of possession does not defeat the Artisan’s lien. Smith v.

Cooper Chevrolet, Inc., 404 So.2d at 51; Finch v. Miller, 531 P.2d at 893; Gen.

Appellate Case: 06-6062 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286552
7

Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Colwell Diesel Serv. & Garage, Inc., 302 A.2d at 597;

Yellow Mfg. Acceptance Corp. v. Bristol, 236 P.2d at 947. Furthermore, even if the

Artisan’s failure to take action to regain possession of the Equipment can be deemed

consent to the Debtor’s prior wrongful taking of the Equipment, such after-the-fact

consent could not have been more than a conditional consent to the Debtor’s

temporary use of the Equipment with an agreement to return it to the Artisan. A

conditional consent to a prior wrongful taking likewise does not defeat the Artisan’s

lien. M & I W. State Bank v. Wilson, 493 N.W.2d at 390; Smith v. Cooper Chevrolet,

Inc., 404 So.2d at 51.

This result is consistent with the policy underlying the creation and priority of

security interests. A lien or security interest must be perfected. The purpose of

perfection is to give the world notice of the lien or security interest. Notice is

generally accomplished in one of three ways: by registering the lien with an agency

(usually a local government entity or a secretary of state’s office), by noting the lien

on the title, or by possession. Third parties can learn of any liens or security interests

in any particular property by searching the records of the appropriate authority or by

viewing the title. If no lien or security interest is disclosed, the third party may rely

on the assumption that the property is owned free and clear of any liens if the property

is in the owner’s possession.

An artisan’s lien does not require registration with any entity. Therefore, in

order to give notice of the lien, the artisan is permitted to retain the property until

receiving payment for the services provided to the property. Upon payment the lien

is satisfied and the artisan releases the property. A third party interested in the

property can easily learn that the property is not in the owner’s possession and is then

put on inquiry notice to determine why the owner does not have possession of the

property. If the owner cannot produce the property, the third party has notice that

another entity, including an artisan, may assert an interest in such property. A third

Appellate Case: 06-6062 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286552
8

party who continues to deal with the property owner after learning the owner lacks

possession of the property does so at his or her peril.

With respect to competing holders of liens or security interests in the same

property, notice of the various liens and security interests allows each interested party

to know where he or she falls in the pecking order. With respect to recorded interests,

the general rule is that first in time has priority. However, artisan’s liens are not

recorded and invariably are created after security interests have been granted. Courts

and legislatures generally recognize that a party who provides labor and materials to

property enhances the value of the property. Therefore, the principles of natural

justice and commercial necessity dictate that the entity who enhances the value of

property should be entitled to payment for such services and may retain the property

until receipt of payment therefor. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Colwell Diesel

Serv. & Garage, Inc., 302 A.2d at 596-97. Indeed, the Nebraska statute at issue in this

case provides exactly that. Artisan’s lien laws are to be liberally construed to

accomplish their equitable purpose of aiding materialmen and laborers to obtain

compensation for materials used and services bestowed upon property of another

which thereby enhances the value of such property. Wiedenbeck-Dobelin Co. v.

Mahoney, 152 N.W. 479, 481 (Wis. 1915).

A lender who advances funds to acquire certain property or who loans money

secured by existing property does so on the basis of the property at the time of the

loan. The lender generally assumes the owner will maintain the property after the loan

is made and often mandates such maintenance in the loan documentation. If the

property later breaks or is in need of maintenance, the owner takes the property to an

artisan for repair or maintenance. Such repair or maintenance enhances the value of

the property, thus enhancing the value of the lender’s collateral. The lender thus

benefits from the repair. This was the case with the Equipment. The Lender took the

security interest in the Equipment long before the Artisan performed the repairs to it.

Immediately prior to the repairs, the Equipment was not working properly and

Appellate Case: 06-6062 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286552
9

therefore its value was diminished. By performing the repairs, the Artisan enhanced

the value of the Equipment, thus benefitting the Lender by increasing the value of its

collateral. Recognizing the superiority of the Artisan’s lien over the Lender’s security

interest is consistent with the policy underlying artisan lien law.

The bankruptcy court was troubled by the lack of certainty where an artisan is

permitted to retain a lien without maintaining possession of the property. By requiring

continuous possession in order to maintain an artisan’s lien, the court limited

uncertainty. While certainty is a valid goal in statutory interpretation, it should not

come at the expense of the purpose behind the statute. Artisan’s liens are designed to

be equitable in nature and to protect the rights of artisans. If the artisan voluntarily

surrenders possession, the artisan loses its lien. However, if the artisan loses

possession through no action of his or her own, the artisan should not be punished.

This is especially true where the Lender benefitted from the repairs to its collateral

and its interests in the Equipment were in no way impaired when the Debtor took the

Equipment from the Artisan nor when he later returned the Equipment to the Artisan.

The bankruptcy court relied on the Glenn decision in reaching its conclusion

that continuous possession is required for an artisan’s lien. In Glenn, the artisan

returned the property to the owner upon receipt of a check for payment of the services.

When the check was dishonored, the artisan requested the owner to return the property

to the artisan, which the owner did. The Glenn court concluded that once the artisan

relinquishes possession, the artisan’s lien is lost and cannot be re-established by

regaining possession. Mack Fin. Corp. v. Peterbilt of Chattanooga, Inc. (In re Glenn),

20 B.R. at 100. However, the Glenn court expressly acknowledged that wrongfully

obtaining possession of the property subject to the lien dispute might change the

result. Id. at 101. The present situation, where the Debtor took the Equipment

without permission, is such a situation. In Glenn, the artisan could have protected

itself by demanding payment in collectible funds prior to release of the property. In

Appellate Case: 06-6062 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286552
10

the present case, the Debtor took the Equipment from the Artisan without permission.

The Artisan could not have prevented such wrongful action on the part of the Debtor.

The bankruptcy court was also concerned that allowing an artisan to regain its

lien by regaining possession of property would give the Debtor control over the

respective priorities between the Artisan and the Lender. The bankruptcy court cited

the Glenn decision which in turn quoted from the dissent in Thorp Commercial Corp.

v. Mississippi Road Supply Co. to support this policy argument. See Mack Fin. Corp.

v. Peterbilt of Chattanooga, Inc. (In re Glenn), 20 B.R. at 100-101, quoting Thorp

Commercial Corp. v. Mississippi Road Supply Co., 348 So. 2d at 1018 (Patterson,

C.J., dissenting). We hold that the Artisan did not lose its lien when the Debtor took

the Equipment without the Artisan’s permission. Therefore, this policy argument does

not impact our holding. Furthermore, the bankruptcy court’s decision accomplished

the very thing it set out to avoid – it allowed the Debtor to dictate the respective

priorities between the Artisan and the Lender by permitting the Debtor’s wrongful

taking of the Equipment to determine the outcome of the priority dispute at the trial

level.

Finally, the bankruptcy court determined that even if an artisan’s lien does not

require continuous possession and that such a lien can be revived when possession is

regained, the automatic stay of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code prevented the

Artisan from gaining possession of the Equipment or from perfecting a lien postpetition. See 11 U.S.C. § 362. Therefore, according to the bankruptcy court, without

relief from the automatic stay the Artisan should not have been able to regain

possession of the Equipment. While technically true, this statement is incomplete and

ignores the entire picture.

On the Petition Date, the Artisan was in possession of the Equipment and thus

had an artisan’s lien with priority over the Lender’s security interest. The petition date

controls the allowance of claims in bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. § 502(b). Therefore,

Appellate Case: 06-6062 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286552
1

 The Debtor did not have the funds to satisfy the Artisan’s lien in return for

the Equipment. However, if made aware of the situation at the time, the Lender

might have agreed to finance the Artisan’s claim in exchange for the release of the

Equipment. Alternatively, the Court could have entered an order preserving the

Artisan’s lien or providing another form of adequate protection under Section 361

of the Bankruptcy Code.

2

 The record lacks any evidence of harm or prejudice to the Lender by the

Debtor’s use of the Equipment during the 2005 growing season.

11

with respect to the Debtor’s bankruptcy case, the Artisan has a claim secured by an

artisan’s lien. Such a claim has priority over the Lender’s secured claim under

Nebraska law. Neb. Rev. Stat. U.C.C. § 9-333(b). Nothing in the Bankruptcy Code

alters this result. Therefore, the Artisan’s lien in the Equipment has priority over the

Lender’s security interest therein.

Furthermore, if all parties had played by the rules, the result would be the same

as that reached in this opinion. As of the Petition Date, the Artisan had possession of

the Equipment. If the Debtor wanted possession of the Equipment, he should have

sought its turnover pursuant to Section 542 of the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C.

§ 542. The Artisan, in turn, would no doubt have demanded adequate protection of

its artisan’s lien under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code prior to releasing

possession of the Equipment. See 11 U.S.C. § 363(e). At such point in time, the

parties might have agreed upon a resolution or the court would have fashioned a

remedy that protected the Artisan’s lien interest while allowing the Debtor to use the

Equipment.1

 It is fundamentally unfair to punish the Artisan for a technical violation

of the automatic stay which occurred as a result of the Debtor’s actions, not the

Artisan’s actions. This is especially true where the Lender was not harmed by the

Debtor’s taking of the Equipment and its subsequent return to the Artisan, and may,

in fact, have benefitted from the Debtor’s use of the Equipment to plant and harvest

a crop which may have produced funds to pay the Lender’s claim.2

Appellate Case: 06-6062 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286552
12

CONCLUSION

The Artisan had an artisan’s lien in the Equipment on the date the Debtor filed

bankruptcy which had priority over the Lender’s security interest under Nebraska law.

The Artisan did not lose its artisan’s lien nor its priority over the Lender’s security

interest when the Debtor took the Equipment from the Artisan’s possession postpetition without authority. Accordingly, under these circumstances we REVERSE the

bankruptcy court’s order determining that the Lender’s security interest in the

Equipment takes priority over the Artisan’s lien therein.

Kressel, Chief Judge, dissenting.

The majority has done an admirable job of reviewing the split of authority on

the issue presented here, none of which admittedly is binding, and picking the line of

cases which it feels provides the fair result for this case. I concede that the result

reached is appealing. I think that in reaching it, the majority has departed from well

established principles of interpretation and, as a result, has essentially engaged in the

legislative process.

Federal courts are frequently called upon to interpret state statutes. Often, we

are aided in that endeavor by decisions from the highest courts of the states involved.

Unfortunately, that is not always true and this case falls into this latter unfortunate

category. Like the majority, I was unable to find any Nebraska Supreme Court

opinions interpreting the statute upon which this appeal turns. “When presented with

a question of state law, upon which the state’s highest court has not yet ruled, the onus

falls to [the federal court] to determine what that court [the state supreme court] would

do, were it presented with the question.” Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. Edwards, 243

F.3d 457, 465 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting from Lindsay Mfg. Co. v. Hartford Accident

& Indem. Co., 118 F.3d 1263, 1267-1268 (8th Cir. 1997).

Appellate Case: 06-6062 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286552
13

While the Nebraska Supreme Court has not interpreted this statute, it does

inform us that:

In the absence of anything to the contrary, statutory

language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning; an

appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain

the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and

unambiguous.

Ferguson v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 258 Neb. 78, 601 N.W.2d 907 (1999). 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 52-201, which is the statute upon which Bellamy’s relies,

deals with the situation where the artisan has parted with possession. Neb. Rev. Stat.

§ 52-202 deals with a situation of a person who repairs farm implements “in cases

when he or she has parted with the possession of such property.”I feel that the

majority has engaged in legislative function by adding to § 52-201, the concept of

continued perfection, notwithstanding loss of possession. While it is a rule that results

in a fair outcome in this appeal, it may not be fair in other circumstances. I could

imagine a situation, for example, where the debtor, after he had used equipment, sold

it to a bona fide purchaser who is aware of the security interest in the equipment, but

unaware of Bellamy’s claim of an artisan’s lien. The majority’s holding would seem

to indicate that the purchaser purchased the equipment subject to Bellamy’s lien.

Somehow, this seems unfair. I think the balancing of these sorts of issues and the

proper solutions are best left to the Unicameral.

Since I think the Nebraska statute unequivocally provides for a first

priority possessory lien only until possession is lost, I would hold that the bankruptcy

court correctly held that Genoa National Bank’s perfected security interest has priority

over Bellamy’s lien and would affirm. 

 

Appellate Case: 06-6062 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286552