Court Opinion

ID: 9602053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:51:26.793753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:00.322409
License: Public Domain

Jordan, Justice.
On July 28, 1972, William O. Bassford, hereinafter called the "owner,” entered into a written contract with James E. Steverson, hereinafter called the "contractor,” wherein the contractor agreed to construct for the owner a certain building in Valdosta for a total lump-sum consideration of $20,275 payable upon completion of the contract. The contractor was to furnish all labor and materials and deliver to the owner the completed building according to specifications attached to the contract. The contractor commenced work under the contract on or about August 1, 1972, and on August 11, 1972, negotiated a loan with the appellant Park Avenue Bank, hereinafter called the "bank,” at which time he agreed to assign the construction contract to the bank as security for said loan. Pursuant to said agreement and on the same date the contractor wrote a letter to the *217owner notifying him of the assignment of the contract to the bank to secure credit advanced against the contract and requesting that the owner make the check in the amount of the contract payable jointly to the contractor and the bank. On the bottom of the same letter the owner in writing stated that he recognized the above described contract assignment and agreed to make payment jointly to the owner and the bank as requested in said letter. On said date the bank made a construction loan to the contractor in the initial amount of $10,309.32 and by later advances increased the total loan amount to the contractor to $15,553.39.
The contractor did not completely finish the building according to the contract and the owner took over and spent the sum of $757.11 in completing the building. At the time the contract was completed materialmen had lienable claims in the combined sum of $9,975.97, each of which liens was timely filed during the period between October .23, 1972, and January 15, 1973. At the time the contract was completed on November 13, 1972, the owner had not paid anything on the contract price, the contractor was insolvent, and neither the bank nor the materialmen had been paid.
On January 25, 1973, the owner filed the present action in Lowndes Superior Court against the bank, the contractor, and the lien holders to determine the rights and priorities of the parties to the contract price. Following an evidentiary hearing in which the trial judge acted as judge and jury, an order was entered holding that the statutory liens of the materialmen had priority over the bank’s security interest in the contract rights and ordered the owner to pay the lien holders and to pay the remainder of the contract price to the bank. It is from this order that the bank appeals. Held:
The bank contends that it acquired a security interest in "contract rights” under the provisions of Code Ann. § 109A-9 — 106 and that the letter from the contractor to the owner giving notice of such assignment and the acknowledgment thereof by the owner on the letter was sufficient to constitute a valid assignment, thereby giving the bank a security interest in the contract rights. We agree with this contention. See *218Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank v. Capital Const. Co., 112 Ga. App. 189 (144 SE2d 465).
Submitted February 11, 1974
Decided May 7, 1974.
Robert J. Dewar, Reinhardt, Whitley & Sims, Bob Reinhardt, for appellant.
Young, Young & Ellerbee, F. Thomas Young, Coleman, Blackburn, Kitchens & Bright, J. Converse Bright, Edwards, Edwards & Edwards, John Kent Edwards, Walker, Yancey & Gupton, J. Stephen Gupton, *219Reuben H Yancey, Langdale & Vallotton, W. P. Langdale, Jr., McLane & Dover, H. Arthur McLane, Tillman, Brice, McTier & Coleman, WadeH. Coleman, Ed G. Barham, for appellees.
*218The next contention of the bank is that its security interest in the contract rights was perfected without the filing of a financing statement as required by Code Ann. § 109A-9 — 302. We do not agree with this contention. Under the cited Code section a financing statement must be filed to perfect all security interests unless the assignment to the assignee does not transfer a significant part of the outstanding contract rights of the assignor. The trial court found, and the evidence clearly authorizes the finding, that the assignment from the contractor to the bank did transfer a significant part of the outstanding contract rights of the assignor. Therefore, the bank was required to file a financing statement in order to perfect its security interest. This it did not do until May, 1973, long after the materialmen’s liens were filed and recorded. See General Lithographing Co. v. Sight & Sound Projectors, 128 Ga. App. 304 (196 SE2d 479).
Code Ann. § 109A-9 — 310 generally provides that a perfected security interest takes priority over liens described in §§ 67-1701 and 113-1508. (Emphasis supplied.) This provision does not aid the appellant here since its security interest was not perfected according to law.
Therefore under the circumstances of this case the trial court did not err in holding that the recorded materialmen’s liens, except for the one held invalid, were superior to the security interest of the bank.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Grice, C. J., Gunter and Ingram, JJ, who concur specially, and Hall, J., who concurs in the judgment only.