Opinion ID: 1179934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Accounting for Personal Property

Text: McDowell argued that when he paid off the note at the bank he purchased the personal property given as security. Even though the bank could have sold the personal property pursuant to the terms of the recorded combined financing statement and security agreement, the banker testified there was no effort on the part of the bank to do so. McDowell merely paid the note which the bank marked paid and gave it and a termination statement to him. Although McDowell might have taken an assignment of the note and security agreement and thereby succeeded to all the rights of the bank as the secured party, he did not do so. The property of which he took possession still belonged to I.D.S., and it was entitled to an accounting. I.D.S. agreed that McDowell would be entitled to set off the amount which he paid the bank against the value of the property which was used or disposed of by him. I.D.S., as the claimant, had the burden of proving the value of the property at the time of the conversion (Suchta v. O.K. Rubber Welders, Inc., Wyo., 386 P.2d 931 at 934), and the only evidence was the testimony of McDowell which showed that the total value of the items was less than the amount which he paid to the bank. It therefore did not meet its burden of showing it was damaged and can take nothing under that portion of its counterclaim. Although most of the items of personal property had either been used up by McDowell in the operation of the funeral business or were sold by him, an organ, pews, desk, chair, typewriter and filing cabinet were still at the funeral home at the time of trial and remain the property of I.D.S.