In re Springfield Casket Co.

21 B.R. 223 (1982)

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

In re Springfield Casket Co.

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio
21 B.R. 223 (1982)

Facts

In 1974, Security National Bank & Trust Co. (the bank) (creditor) filed a financing statement related to a prior transaction, which covered all of Springfield Casket Co., Inc.’s (Springfield) (debtor) then-owned and after-acquired inventory, including the proceeds of that inventory. The bank filed a continuation statement in 1979. In January 1981, Springfield obtained a loan from the bank, which was represented by a note. The note contained a security agreement in which Springfield gave the bank a security interest in all its existing and future accounts receivable, including their proceeds. The bank did not file another financing statement. In September 1981, Springfield filed for bankruptcy before it finished paying off the note. Thereafter, the bankruptcy trustee collected two of Springfield’s accounts receivable (the collected accounts receivable) related to two customers’ purchases of finished products after application of a showroom and sales service. The bank sought payment of the collected accounts receivable. However, the bankruptcy trustee sought to avoid the bank’s interest pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544. The bank argued that its financing statement covered the collected accounts receivable because the financing statement covered proceeds of the inventory. The bankruptcy trustee argued that the financing statement did not cover the collected accounts receivable because the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) defined “accounts” and “proceeds” separately. The bankruptcy trustee also argued the collected accounts receivable did not constitute proceeds of the inventory, because the accounts related to finished products after showroom and sales service and because the money collected constituted proceeds of the proceeds.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, 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 736,000 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 736,000 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 736,000 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