Legal Document

522 U.S. 211118 S.Ct. 651139 L.Ed.2d 571 FIDELITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioner,v.Richard V. FINK, Trustee. No. 96-1370. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Nov. 3, 1997. Decided Jan. 13, 1998. Syllabus * Diane Beasley purchased a new car and gave petitioner, Fidelity Financial Services, Inc., promissory note for purchase price, secured by car. Twenty-one days later, mailed application necessary to perfect its security interest under Missouri law. later filed bankruptcy, trustee her bankruptcy estate, respondent Fink, moved set aside Fidelity's on ground that lien was voidable preference 11 U.S.C. §547(b). Section 547(c)(3)(B) prohibits avoidance loan used acquire property if, among other things, is "perfected or before 20 after debtor receives possession such property.'' Fink argued this "enabling loan'' exception inapposite because had not perfected within 20-day period. responded law treats motor vehicle as having been "perfected'' date creation (in case, period), if creditor files documents 30 takes possession. The Bankruptcy preference, holding Missouri's relation-back provision could extend §547(c)(3)(B)'s perfection District affirmed substantially same grounds, did Eighth Circuit, transfer be when transferee last step required state interest. Held: A §547(c)(3)(B) party has completed steps interest, so may invoke enabling only satisfying requirements period provided federal statute. 547(e)(1)(B) provides "a . simple contract cannot judicial superior transferee.'' This definition implies done all acts at moment which retroactively deem effective. variety considerations support conclusion, including §546, raises negative implication Congress intend provisions grace periods control trustee's power avoid preferences, fact that, reading, net effect 1994 amendment extending from 10 would merely benefit class creditors in ten jurisdictions. Indeed, broader statutory history persuasively suggests intended establish uniform immune alteration laws permitting relation back. Thus, text, structure, lead understanding acting property. Pp. ___-___. 102 F.3d 334 (C.A.8 1996), affirmed. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Michael P. Gaughan, Kansas City, MO, petitioner. Richard respondent. Justice SOUTER 1 Although certain transfers made filing petition avoided impermissibly preferential, displace encumbered §547(c)(3)(B). question case whether it performs more than property, but otherwise applicable We answer no hold 2 On August 17, 1994, Ford September 7, addressed Department Revenue. See Mo.Rev.Stat. §301.600(2) (1994).1 3 Two months sought relief Chapter 7 Code. After proceeding converted one respondent, Beasley's He being failed received §301.600(2)(1994). 4 twenty-day imposed In re Beasley, 183 B.R. 857 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mo.1995). appealed Western Missouri, Appeals "when interest.'' 334, 335 (1996) (Per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). 5 granted certiorari, 520 ----, 117 1690, 137 818 (1997), resolve conflict Circuits over §547(c)(3)(B).2 affirm. II 6 Without regard §547(b), falls §547(c)(3), requirement securing possession.'' Perfection turns §547(e)(1)(B), real Like Courts have adopted position, see n. 2, supra, sees subsection (c)(3)(B) guarantee will act, also reflection deems underlying Under law, example, "lien encumbrance delivery [of specified documents] director revenue,'' (1994), lien's "as time aforesaid revenue thirty thereafter, delivery.'' Ibid. contends although car, must treated day papers allowed qualify advantage. If sound reasoning, very drove away Ford, §547(c)(3)'s exception.3 8 assumption term defined (e)(1)(B) refer easily, however. It quite certain, begin with, relevant context sometimes word "perfection'' mean legal conclusion purposes calculating priorities should occurred particular date, conclusion. 546(b)(1)(A) speaks permit "perfection effective perfection.'' §546(b)(1)(A). distinction implicit speaking antecedent "date perfection'' shows thinking about difference between entailed applying rule and, hand, taken trigger an rule. 9 Knowing understood these two different senses, can how construction §547(e)(1)(B) poor fit with text. thought means whatever claim priority fight armed lien, statute does speak terms. Rather, says "When'' "cannot acquire'' lien. are ostensibly straightforward references action world, tip-offs (like terms if'' "deemed'') clock turned back some universe. "can'' any until sufficient Such would, course, lose during period, performed those acts; possibility "cannot'' however, superiority fleeting. Not actually final act foreclosed conclusively obtaining then they apparently imply First, related Code preferences. §546 puts limits powers forth elsewhere, §546(b)(1)(A) "rights sections 544, 545, 549 title subject generally permits against entity acquires rights series skip §545 §549, omission §547 becomes pointed read subsections explicitly proceedings §547. §§546(a), (c)-(g). So, hard resist specifically pre-petition preferences prevail rules There further reading circumstances extended days. Reform Act §203(1), Pub.L. 103-394, 108 Stat. 4122. At legislation passed, most version Article 9-301(2) Uniform Commercial Code, 12 " [i]f respect money collateral, he bulk arise attaches filing.'' §9-301(2), 3A U.L.A. (1992). 13 Forty-two states modifications debtor's first collateral. §9-301, 10, 14-15 (1992 Supp.1997); Cal. Com.Code Ann. §9301(2) (West R.I. Gen. Laws §6A-9-301(2)(1992). 14 view way §547(c)(3) together 10th 20th still complied 10-day deadline pre-1994 view, recognized old ten-day (of there none), went 11th (or later) which, surprising learn, less were eight, plus Guam Columbia). shared provision, accomplished little, few lacked And, understand why wanted do that. change brought uniformity practice, State chosen longer (and, vehicles, least so, see, e.g., W. Va.Code §17A-4A-4(a) (providing 60-day period)). thus eight States, Guam, Columbia, jurisdictions looked out their own so. easy imagine meant accomplish nothing more, uniform, effort. 15 Driven ditch, relies isolated piece legislative history. floor Senate April consideration 1993, bill never enacted identical days, Senators Heflin Sasser appeared address issue now us.4 During colloquy, senators agreed "although language codify [the Eleventh Circuit's decision Busenlehner Tenth Hesser], consistent Federal law.'' 140 Cong.Rec. S4537 (Apr. 20, 1994) (remarks Sen. Sasser). Senator "appropriate intent confirm interpretations circuits.'' exchange indicating passing enact holdings rule, creditor's filing. 16 But colloquy supports argument. began describing noting proposed [f]ederal days.'' Id., S4536. "advisable clarify caused unnecessary litigation throughout country.'' stated [c]larifying "relation back' statutes S4537. These remarks reflect senators' discussing proposal them. we seen, elsewhere addressing provision. simply using occasion offer views existing underscored Sasser's observation "there court cases.'' 17 Whatever weight members might accord statements proposals consideration, purport "related'' areas little persuasive force, none all. For odds governing text current provisions, former §60 previous Act, referred determining occurred. general personal became far subsequent upon obtainable equitable become §96(a)(2) (1964 ed.). subjected exceptions 18 [w]here (A) specifies twenty-one recording, delivery, required, compliance therewith time; where (B) transfer, shall deemed suffered transfer.'' §96(a)(7)(I). 19 transaction rise it, "recording, act,'' long 21 even determine allow opportunity beyond outer limit provided. light history, basis say amendments removing options counterintuitive deferring what done. short, ** 22 Accordingly, affirm judgment Circuit. 23 ordered. syllabus constitutes part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. Whether mailing raised case. below statute, governmental employee delivering responding application. As governed federal, state, voidability Compare Locklin, 101 435, 442 (C.A.5 1996) (holding prevails law); Walker, 77 322, 323-324 (C.A.9 (same); Hamilton, 892 F.2d 1230, 1234-1235 1990)(same), Hesser, 984 345, 348-349 (C.A.10 1993) law), Busenlehner, 918 928, 930-931 (C.A.11 1990) (same), cert. denied sub nom. Moister General Motors Acceptance Corp., 500 949, 111 2251, 114 492 (1991). suggested oral argument, Tr. Oral Arg. 22-23, carry another consequence. creation, presumably place §547(e)(2)(A), outside 90-day §547(b)(4)(A), "appeared,'' free ambiguity. 1994). sake treat favorable Fidelity.

Classification Label: 7