At issue is whether the debtor's name on the financing statement complied with the Uniform Commercial Code. In the event the debtor's name was not proper, then it must be determined whether that error constituted the type of mistake contemplated by Ark. Code Ann. Each case must be decided on the basis of its own facts. In the case at bar, it is uncontested that the financing statement contained an error with regard to the debtor's name. Accordingly, we do not conclude that because the debtor's name was incorrectly listed on the financing statement, appellants were unable to establish that the security interest was perfected.
Appellants also argue that the trial court erred by denying their directed-verdict motion.
See, e.g., Morton v. American Med. More importantly, however, appellants' motion appears to have beenoffered at a time other than that contemplated by Ark. R. Civ. A party may also move for a directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence . . . . That standard of review is, of course, no help in cases such as this where the defendant has not presented a case. See, e.g., R.J. Bob Jones Excavating Contractor, Inc. v. Firemen's Ins.