Court Opinion

ID: 9736198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:46:56.947788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:05.027015
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
concurring.
Despite the tenacity with which Masson argues the question of title,1 I am persuaded that this transaction lies within the purview of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Without a doubt, Masson agreed to advance funds to Blue Valley in return for the production of cheese. As noted by the majority, there was an understanding between the two parties that, in accordance with the agreement, Masson would purchase the entire product of Blue Valley. Unfortunately, there was no written contract to this effect. More importantly, there was no security interest created by Masson to protect its interest in the cheese produced by Blue Valley.
If a security interest had been obtained, Masson would have been required to perfect it. IC 1971, 26-1-9-302(l)(e). The transaction in question was not an isolated assignment of proceeds from the cheese, but rather an attempted assignment of all of the cheese produced by Blue Valley in return for money advanced by Masson. Even if Masson had succeeded in creating an unper-fected security interest in the cheese produced, it would have been subordinated to the rights of Valley Lea. IC 1971, 26-1-9-301(1).
In essence, Valley Lea is a stranger to the agreement between Masson and Blue Valley. It should not be held to answer for Masson’s failure to create a security interest in the third shipment of cheese.
I concur.

. See IC 1971, 26-1-9-202.