DeGiacomo v. Raymond C. Green, Inc. (In re Inofin, Inc.)

512 B.R. 19 (2014)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

DeGiacomo v. Raymond C. Green, Inc. (In re Inofin, Inc.)

United States Bankruptcy Court of the District of Massachusetts
512 B.R. 19 (2014)

SH

Facts

Dealers sold cars to consumers for a small deposit. The balance of the purchase price was financed using installment contracts (IC). Each IC set forth the consumer’s financial obligations to the dealer and, as collateral, granted to the dealer a security interest in the car. The dealers then sold and assigned to Inofin, Inc. all right, title, and interest in the ICs and all collateral described therein pursuant to a seller agreement. Separate from the seller agreement, the dealers and Inofin also executed a partial purchase and assignment (PPA) in connection with each IC. Each PPA set forth a reversion to the Dealers of all right, title, and interest in the ICs as soon as Inofin recovered whatever monies it was entitled to receive. Inofin obtained the financing to purchase all the ICs through its long-standing lending relationship with Raymond C. Green, Inc. (RCG) (defendant) that commenced through a series of loan documents, including a loan agreement and a security agreement. Pursuant to the loan agreement, all funds disbursed were for the sole purpose of financing the purchase of the ICs, and each disbursement was to be secured and perfected through the receipt and possession of the original ICs and PPAs. Further, the security agreement granted to RCG a security interest in “all of [Inofin’s] rights in and to chattel paper . . . purchased . . . with the proceeds of loans from [RCG] and assigned and delivered to [RCG].” Even though RCG obtained possession of the original ICs, it obtained just copies of the PPAs. The Chapter 7 trustee (trustee) (plaintiff) initiated the instant proceeding for a declaration that RCG failed to perfect its security interest in the ICs because it never obtained the original PPAs. The trustee argued that the PPAs were the operative documents with respect to the dealer’s rights under the ICs and, therefore, constituted chattel paper within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The trustee further argued that, because the PPAs constituted chattel paper, RCG was required under the loan documents to obtain the original PPAs, without which RCG was unable to perfect its security interest in the ICs.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Feeney, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership