Opinion ID: 1945691
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: can payments made in ordinary course of business constitute voidable preferences under nisrla?

Text: Gilbane argues that because Amwest made the payments at issue in the ordinary course of its business as a surety, the payments cannot constitute voidable preferences. The federal Bankruptcy Code in effect in 2001 specifically provided that to the extent that a transfer was in payment of a debt incurred by the debtor in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee and the transfer was made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee or made according to ordinary business terms, it could not be avoided as a preference. [19] Although NISRLA contains no similar provision, Gilbane invites us to read an ordinary course of business exception into the statute, following the lead of an Ohio appellate court in an unpublished opinion. [20] We decline the invitation. As we noted at the outset, the law applicable to this case is statutory. It is the Legislature's function through the enactment of statutes to declare what is the law and public policy. [21] The Legislature is presumed to know the general condition surrounding the subject matter of the legislative enactment, and it is presumed to know and contemplate the legal effect that accompanies the language it employs to make effective the legislation. [22] As we have long held: A statute is not to be read as if open to construction as a matter of course. Where the words of a statute are plain, direct, and unambiguous, no interpretation is needed to ascertain the meaning. In the absence of anything to indicate the contrary, words must be given their ordinary meaning. It is not within the province of a court to read a meaning into a statute that is not warranted by the legislative language. [23] Where the Legislature does not enact an exception to a statutory rule, this court must assume that the Legislature intended to do what it did. [24] The ordinary course of business exception was codified in the federal Bankruptcy Code before the Nebraska Legislature enacted NISRLA in 1989. [25] Although the Legislature specifically exempted certain transfers from being considered as avoidable preferences, [26] it did not enact an ordinary course of business exception. As noted, it is not our function to create exceptions to statutory rules. [27] We agree with the district court that Amwest's obligation to Gilbane under the performance bond at the time of the principal's default was an antecedent debt for which the four challenged payments were made.