Opinion ID: 1762262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The grinder mixer.

Text: Since the bank has a valid loan and security agreement which was perfected by the filing of financing statements as required by secs. 409.303(1) [3] and 409.302(1) [4] Stats., its security, including after-acquired property, has priority under sec. 409.312(5)(a), [5] to an after-perfected security of another creditor. Although the trial court stated Strauss' interest in the grinder mixer was for an antecedent debt and Strauss questions this conclusion on appeal, that is not the controlling issue. Whether a pre-existing debt is or is not a valid consideration for a security interest, see 15 Am. Jur. 2d, Chattel Mortgages, p. 231, sec. 41; Bankruptcy Act, sec. 60; 11 USCA 96, the priority rank under the code of a valid security interest is unaffected. Here, the bank's security is entitled to priority as to the grinder mixer over Strauss' chattel mortgage because it was filed on August 23, 1965, almost two years prior to Strauss' filing his chattel mortgage on May 3, 1967. Although it is true, the bank filed financing statements covering after-acquired property subsequent to its original filing on August 23, 1965, no termination statement was filed pursuant to sec. 409.404, Stats., [6] to cut off the bank's interest in the August 23, 1965, filing. Therefore, the original date must be used to determine the priority of the conflicting claims to the grinder mixer.