Opinion ID: 1812667
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did travelers have a priority claim?

Text: Travelers bound itself as surety for Neely Bros. Construction Corp. to the Board of Supervisors of Hinds County in the amount of $4,491,392 on a performance bond and in the amount of $2,245,696 on a labor and material payment bond in connection with the construction by Neely Bros. of a detention facility for Hinds County. Travelers required Neely Bros. to execute a general agreement of indemnity as a prerequisite to the execution of the above bonds and based its claim to priority on a financing statement filed June 14, 1976 with the indemnity agreement attached. Travelers' claim was not based on its right of subrogation as a surety because none of the funds held by the receiver represented funds to which Travelers would be subrogated. Travelers' right of subrogation as a surety is not subject to the filing requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Clark, 254 So.2d 741 (Miss. 1971). However, Travelers' claim was a financing transaction subject to the filing requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code. The trial court held that Travelers' financing statement with its attachment was not signed as required by section 75-9-402(1) Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) which provides, in part: A financing statement is sufficient if it is signed by the debtor and the secured party, gives an address of the secured party from which information concerning the security interest may be obtained, gives a mailing address of the debtor and contains a statement indicating the types, or describing the items, of collateral ... A copy of the security agreement is sufficient as a financing statement if it contains the above information and is signed by both parties. [2] The financing statement filed by Travelers did not contain the signature of the debtor and the indemnity agreement filed as a security agreement did not contain the signature of the secured party. The signature of the debtor on the security agreement did not cure the deficiency of failing to have the debtor sign the financing statement, neither did the signature of the secured party on the financing statement cure the deficiency of the failure of the secured party to sign the security agreement. The deficiency in each of the documents was not cured by stapling them together and filing them as one instrument. We hold that the trial court was correct in its ruling that Travelers did not perfect its lien by filing the financing statement with the security agreement attached. First National argues that the indemnity agreement was not sufficient to constitute a security agreement; however, we do not reach this question because the financing statement and security agreement were not signed as required by the Uniform Commercial Code. It is not necessary for a decision under the facts of this case to determine whether the indemnity agreement constituted a security agreement under the Uniform Commercial Code.