Opinion ID: 1676049
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Security Agreements

Text: Appellant has also denied the effectiveness of the security agreements in evidence. There are two transactions in question and for each of these apparently there were several executed security agreements. It suffices, however, if there is extant and before us one adequate agreement in each transaction. Appellant specifically attacks exhibits 5, 6 and 7. Exhibits 5 and 7 are security agreements covering [a]ll inventory of every kind whatsoever, whether now owned or hereafter acquired, and all machinery, equipment, furniture and fixtures, whatsoever, whether now owned or hereafter acquired. One of these documents is apparently a carbon of the other, but they have each been separately signed. Exhibit 6 is a security agreement covering: [a]ll accounts receivables [sic], contracts and chattel paper, whatsoever, whether now owned or hereafter acquired. SDCL 57-36-3 requires the debtor's signature for a valid security agreement. Nothing is said of the debtor's seal nor of secured party's signature. Exhibit 6 is signed: Upton, Inc. Security Bank & Trust Co. /s/ Rodney Upton II By /s/ R. H. Garry Pres. R. H. Garry, President /s/ Janet T. Upton (Secured Party) Sec. There appears to be no real question presented by this agreement. The signatures are not challenged and the corporate capacities of all signers are clearly indicated. To the extent that Exhibit 6, covering intangibles, is at issue in the instant case, we find Appellant's attack on it without merit. Exhibit 5 is signed: /s/ Rodney Upton II Pres. (Debtor) /s/ Janet T. Upton By /s/ R. H. Garry Sec. (Debtor) R. H. Garry, President (Secured Party) Beneath Garry's name appears the corporate seal of Upton, Inc. The testimony of Mr. Garry is uncontroverted that he wrote in the titles Pres. and Sec. in the presence of the Uptons. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of all signatures for failure to indicate corporate capacity of either the Uptons or bank president Garry. We delay not with the assault on the Garry signature. Since our law does not require the secured party's signature on a security agreement it matters little how Mr. Garry signed it, though one should have little doubt on the subject taking into consideration the title President after his name, the bank's subsequent transfer of the document to the Small Business Administration, and the filed financing statement indicating both debtor and secured party quite clearly. The use of the titles Pres. and Sec. following the signatures of the two Uptons are indicative of their intention to appear on these documents as corporate officers. The impression of the seal of Upton, Inc., on the same document in close proximity to their signatures can leave little doubt that the Uptons were signing as officers of the corporation which bore their name and whose seal was affixed. It would be contrary to the spirit of the UCC to find that such clear indication of these two parties to sign in their capacity as corporate officers was inadequate to meet the demands of SDCL 57-36-3. Since there is at least one sufficiently executed copy of the security agreement, namely exhibit 5, in the record, and no more than one is required, we have no need to pass on the objections to exhibit 7 which is but a copy of exhibit 5. Appellant's objections to the validity of both security agreements thus fail.