IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ALL POINTS CAPITAL CORP.,

a foreign corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-116/RS-EMT

BOYD BROTHERS, INC., a Florida 

corporation, JAMES A. BOYD, an

individual, and JAMES A. BOYD, JR.,

an individual, 

Defendants,

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are Plaintiff‟s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) and 

Defendants‟ Response in Opposition (Doc. 57). 

Plaintiff challenges the remaining affirmative defenses raised in Defendants‟

Answer. (See Doc. 35) (dismissing all but the fifth and sixth affirmative defense). 

Defendants contend that Plaintiff is barred from relief because the Guarantee 

Agreements entered into by the individual defendants contained no signature page and 

were never notarized. 1 At deposition, the individual defendants were shown the 

Guarantee Agreements with the missing signature page and verified that the signatures 

belonged to them. (See Doc. 47, Attach. 2) (See also Doc. 47, ¶¶5-8). Defendants do not 

 

1 The notarization issue has already been resolved. (See Doc. 35, p.2). 

Case 5:11-cv-00116-MW-EMT Document 58 Filed 10/21/11 Page 1 of 3
dispute this account of events in their response. Thus, the undisputed facts now make 

Defendants‟ fifth affirmative defense meritless. 

Defendants‟ final defense is that the Cross-Collateral and Cross-Default 

Agreements do not identify or reference any loan or agreement between Boyd Brothers 

and RCA. (Doc. 9, p.2). This argument is unpersuasive. The terms are very clear. “All 

presently existing and hereafter acquired Collateral in which you have or shall have a 

security interest shall secure payment and performance of all of our liabilities and 

obligations . . .” (Doc. 1, Attach. 1, Exhibit R). A security interest is valid if the 

description of personal or real property “reasonably identifies what is described.” FLA.

STAT. § 679.1081(1). The test of sufficiency of a description “is that the description do 

the job assigned to it: Make possible the identification of the collateral described.” Id. 

Official Comment 2. A security agreement which purports to take an interest in “all 

assets” or “all personal property” is not sufficient. 2 Id. Official Comment 2. Here, the 

security agreement is specific enough -- it identifies the nature of this security interest as 

other collateral.3 

Finally, Defendants claim that the “disputed fact exists as to whether RCA 

assigned the right, title and interest in the loan agreements to the Plaintiff.” (Doc. 56, 

¶3). This assertion is not tied to any of their affirmative defenses and is of no moment at 

this stage. An element of Plaintiff‟s case is that they have a valid and enforceable 

 

2 A description of “all assets” or “all personal” property is, on the other hand, sufficient for a financing statement. 

3

Plaintiff also contends that the individual defendants “admitted that „all collateral tied to any loan with RCA [the 

assignor of the loans to Plaintiff] . . . is cross-collateralized‟ by the Agreements. . .” (Doc. 47, ¶9). Defendants to 

not attack this assertion in their response. 

Case 5:11-cv-00116-MW-EMT Document 58 Filed 10/21/11 Page 2 of 3
contract. Defendants may, at trial, attack Plaintiff‟s case with their contention that RCA 

did not assign the loan agreement. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) is GRANTED. 

2. The fifth and sixth affirmative defenses are dismissed. No affirmative defenses 

now remain. 

3. This Order applies only to the individual defendants and not to the corporate 

defendant for which the case is stayed for bankruptcy. When the stay is lifted, 

upon motion, I may revisit the applicability of this Order to the corporate 

defendant. 

ORDERED on October 21, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00116-MW-EMT Document 58 Filed 10/21/11 Page 3 of 3