Court Opinion

ID: 9819282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:21:45.771499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:29.721427
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. At issue here is the time period during which a perfected security interest in farm products remains in effect. The Uniform Commercial Code provides that a buyer takes farm products subject to a security interest if: “within one year before the sale of the farm products, the buyer has received from the secured party or the seller written notice of the security interest organized according to farm products that: He * Hi (iv) will lapse on either the expiration period of the statement or the transmission of a notice signed by the secured party that the statement has lapsed, whichever occurs first[.]” 810 ILCS 5/9 — 307 (West 1996). Here, IBP acknowledged receipt of a written statement of the Bank’s security interest in the hogs raised by the Przybylskis. The statement informed IBI) as a potential buyer, that a security interest existed in the Przybylskis’ hogs “until Purchaser [IBP] is otherwise notified in writing by Lender [Bank].” I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that notice of the secured party’s interest expires after one year when language of the statute clearly states that such notice lapses only upon the expiration date contained in the written statement or upon the secured party’s written transmission that its interest has been satisfied. I agree with the Bank’s contention that the plain language of section 9 — 307(4) of the Uniform Commercial Code (810 ILCS 5/9 — 307(4) (West 1996)) can only be interpreted to mean that notice sent to a buyer by a secured party lapses only when the notice either contains an expiration period within it or when the secured party sends notice that its interest has been satisfied. I see no need to resort to interpretation of the federal statute where the language of our Illinois statute is quite clear. Unlike the majority, I see no unrealistic or unreasonable burden for a purchaser that has been given direct notice of a security interest by a specific secured party to secure a release from that secured party prior to making payment to the secured party’s debtor. For example, in the instant matter, IBP honored the Bank’s security interest even after the alleged one-year effective date had expired and it did so without any “unrealistic or unreasonable burden.” Likewise, it could have, without burden, continued to honor the Bank’s security interest by making the checks payable to both the Przybylskis and the Bank. For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Knox County and remand for entry of judgment for the plaintiff Bank.