In Re Estate of Silver
Michigan Court of Appeals
2003 Mich. App. LEXIS 1389, 50 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 1196 (2003)

- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Kathleen Wilson entered into a security agreement with Mark Conti that gave her a security interest in items belonging to Conti, including his equipment. In 1996 Wilson filed a financing statement to perfect her interest in the assets, including the equipment. From 1998 to 1999, Conti executed security agreements with the Joseph M. Silver Trust (Silver Trust) giving the trust a security interest in 11 paintings. Silver Trust took possession of the paintings to perfect its interest. A probate court found that seven of the paintings were equipment, and therefore, Wilson’s financing statement gave her priority over those paintings. However, the probate court ruled that four of the paintings were consumer goods, owned by Conti primarily for his personal use. Because Wilson’s financing statement did not cover consumer goods, her interest in those four paintings was not perfected, and the probate court awarded the paintings to Silver Trust. Wilson and Conti appealed, arguing that the probate court erred in determining that the four paintings were consumer goods as opposed to equipment. Conti testified that he purchased the paintings to use in his business, where they hung in model homes and in company offices. Conti testified that he did not use the paintings in his home or in his office at work.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.