Opinion ID: 1431745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: validity of secured transactions

Text: Wyo. Stat. § 34-21-935(b) (1977) provides: Except where this article otherwise provides, a security interest continues in collateral notwithstanding sale, exchange or other disposition thereof unless the disposition was authorized by the secured party in the security agreement or otherwise, and also continues in any identifiable proceeds including collections received by the debtor. Wales attempts to avoid the effect of this statute by reasoning that Franke's participation in what he characterizes as fraudulent transactions should cause the RV Enterprises/Schulte contract and security agreement to be unenforceable. We do not agree. Assuming arguendo that Franke's actions are either fraudulent, unlawful, or against public policy, there is no basis for imputing such actions to RV Enterprises. Wyo. Stat. § 17-13-301(b) (1977) provides: An act of a partner which is not apparently for the carrying on of the business of the partnership in the usual way does not bind the partnership unless authorized by the other partners. Although Franke was authorized to carry on the video rental business in the usual way, she did not have the authority to sell the business assets of RV Enterprises without the consent of Roll. Her conduct with Schulte in their dealings with Wales was not apparently for the carrying on of the business of the partnership in the usual way. Thus, her conduct did not bind the partnership unless authorized by the other partners. It is undisputed that Roll did not consent to, or have prior knowledge of, the sale of the business property to Wales through Schulte as a straw man, or otherwise. Since Roll did not authorize Franke's conduct, her conduct did not bind the partnership. We hold as a matter of law that it was not error, under the circumstances of this case, for the district court to permit RV Enterprises to use unfiled depositions to support its motion for summary judgment and that the alleged acts of Franke did not undermine RV Enterprises' security interest in the property sold to Schulte, notwithstanding the subsequent sale to Wales. AFFIRMED. URBIGKIT, J., files an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.