CFB-5, Inc. v. Cunningham
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
371 B.R. 175 (2007)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
In Vernon Hulme’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, James Cunningham (the trustee) (plaintiff) was appointed as the trustee of the bankruptcy estate. In that role, he was responsible for identifying estate assets that could be used to repay Hulme’s creditors. The trustee concluded that the only such assets were a collection of paintings owned by Hulme, some of which were in the possession of Greg Cunningham, who was the president of CFB-5, Inc. (defendant). The trustee recovered 19 paintings from Cunningham and CFB-5. However, CFB-5 disputed Hulme’s ownership of three of the paintings, claiming, among other things, that CFB-5 had a purchase-money security interest in and a possessory lien on those paintings. The trustee objected to CFB-5’s claim of any interest in the paintings. At a hearing, Hulme admitted that Cunningham loaned him the money to purchase the three paintings. However, Hulme explained that he never executed a security agreement giving CFB-5 or Cunningham a security interest in the paintings as collateral for his repayment obligation. Finding Hulme’s testimony credible, the bankruptcy court held that CFB-5 did not have a security interest in or a possessory lien on the paintings. CFB-5 appealed to the federal district court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Solis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 904,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

