Court Opinion

ID: 9638758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:53:05.786107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:09.397217
License: Public Domain

LUKOWSKY, Justice,
dissenting.
The question of the enforceability of Bank’s secured interest is not answered by a determination that the description of real estate is sufficient to identify the land. Rather, the crucial determination to be made is whether the security agreement/financing statement contains the information required by statute. The correct determination of the former is not necessarily determinative of the latter.
The majority quite correctly cite and rely on KRS 355.9-203(l)(b) and KRS 355.9-402(1), but they conveniently ignore KRS 355.9 — 402(4) which provides in part:
“A form substantially as follows is sufficient to comply with subsection (1):
*1652.(If collateral is crops) the above described crops are growing or are to be grown on:
(Describe Real Estate)_”
This language makes it crystal clear that a secured interest in crops is unenforceable unless a description is given of the real estate on which they are growing or to be grown in the security agreement/financing statement.
That information was not contained in the security agreement/financing statement in this case. The most that can be gleaned from the document here is that all the collateral (animals, machinery, motor vehicles and crops) would be either kept at Baugh’s address or located “at: on farm of Dale Wilson.”
Keep and locate simply are not synonyms for grow. Crops may be grown one place and kept or located another. The sine qua non of validity is an unequivocal statement of the place of growth, not an inference to be twisted from an ambiguous reference to keeping or locating.
Because the security agreement/financing statement here does not give the location at which the crops are growing or are to be grown, as required by statute, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and reverse the judgment of the Boyle Circuit Court.