From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Hockensmith v. Fifth Third Bank
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
79 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 176 (2012)
Randall Hockensmith (plaintiff) collected and sold classic cars. Hockensmith often advanced funds to Performance Plus Motor Sports, Inc. (Performance Plus) so that Performance Plus could find, restore, and sell classic cars on Hockensmith’s behalf. Hockensmith and Performance Plus would then split the profits from the sales. Performance Plus had a financing agreement with Fifth Third Bank (Fifth Third) (defendant) that gave Fifth Third a security interest in all goods, including new and used cars, owned or acquired by Performance Plus. Performance Plus had bought several classic Corvette cars on Hockensmith’s behalf and was in the process of restoring them when Fifth Third asked Performance Plus to obtain a different lender for its business. Performance Plus, which held title to the Corvettes, informed Hockensmith of Fifth Third’s request. Hockensmith asked Performance Plus to move the cars and to title them in Hockensmith’s name. Performance Plus immediately transferred title but did not immediately move the cars. Title to two of the cars listed $0 as the purchase price. Performance Plus subsequently defaulted on its financing agreement with Fifth Third, and Fifth Third obtained a judgment against Performance Plus. The Corvettes were still at Performance Plus when the sheriff seized all property on Performance Plus’s premises to satisfy Fifth Third’s judgment. Fifth Third then sold the Corvettes and applied the proceeds to Performance Plus’s debts. Hockensmith sued Fifth Third for conversion and replevin. Asserting that he was a buyer in the ordinary course of business, Hockensmith moved for summary judgment. Fifth Third argued that it had been entitled to seize and sell the Corvettes because it had a perfected security interest in property on Performance Plus’s premises. A perfected security interest is secure against other creditors claiming a competing interest in the collateral. The trial court determined that Hockensmith’s title to the Corvettes was not dispositive and considered whether Hockensmith was a buyer in the ordinary course of business.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Beckwith, J.)
What to do next…
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 602,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.