Opinion ID: 1173213
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sale of Personalty.

Text: On cross-appeal, the Whites argue that the district court erred in refusing to allow them to participate in the sale of the Harmons' personalty. We agree. The security agreement states: 1. The following is the obligation secured by this agreement: a. All past, present, and future advances, of whatever type, by bank to debtor.    b. All existing and future liabilities, of whatever type, of debtor to bank.    (Emphasis added.) This language clearly provides that the personalty described in the security agreement secures all previous debts. The debt from the endorsed note was created before this security agreement. Therefore, that debt was past and existing and was clearly covered by the security agreement. Farmers and Stockmens Bank v. Layton . We thus determine that the Whites should be allowed to participate in the sale of the personalty listed in the security agreement.