In re Jim Ross Tires, Inc.

379 B.R. 670 (2007)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Jim Ross Tires, Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas
379 B.R. 670 (2007)

Facts

In 2006, Jim Ross Tires, Inc. (JRT) (debtor) filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Am-Pac Tire Dist., Inc. (AmPac) and Tradition Bank (creditors) filed proofs of claim pursuant to several financing statements. AmPac filed a financing statement in 2002 stating JRT’s name as “Jim Ross Tires, Inc. dba HTC Tires & Automotive Centers.” Tradition Bank filed a financing statement in 2004 stating JRT’s name as “Jim Ross Tire Inc.” JRT’s name per the Texas Secretary of State was “Jim Ross Tires Inc.” JRT’s trade name, “HTC Tires & Automotive Centers,” expired in 2000. The bankruptcy trustee (Trustee) objected to the proofs of claim and sought to avoid AmPac and Tradition Banks’ unperfected security interests under the Bankruptcy Code. The Trustee argued that the 2002 and 2004 financing statements were inadequate because they failed to properly list JRT’s name as required by the Texas Business and Commerce Code (Code), rendering the financing statements ineffective. AmPac argued that its inclusion of the dba at the end of JRT’s name on the 2002 financing statement should be ignored because the Code set forth only a minimum limitation for stating the debtor’s name. Tradition Bank argued there was nothing in the standard search logic that would prohibit the official search engine from finding the 2004 financing statement merely because an “s” was missing at the end of the name. Tradition Bank additionally argued that its security interest should be perfected because the 2004 financing statement could be located by using nonstandard search logic.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Isgur, 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 733,000 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
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 733,000 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
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 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