Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

In re Tucker

329 Bankr. 291, 59 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 1131 (2005)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

In re Tucker

United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona

329 Bankr. 291, 59 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 1131 (2005)

Facts

On April 21, 2001, Edward Tucker (debtor) purchased three vehicles for his car dealership in Arizona from Par Wholesale Auto, Inc. (Par) (creditor) in Texas with financing from DAVCO Enterprises (DAVCO) (creditor). DAVCO was to hold onto vehicle titles as security until Tucker sold them. Tucker gave Par a check for the first vehicle and purchased the other two on credit with a promise to pay with two bank drafts. All three vehicles were delivered to Tucker’s car dealership. Unfortunately, Tucker’s check for the first vehicle bounced, and he did not have the funds to replace it. Upon Par’s demand for payment or the vehicles, on April 28, Tucker returned the three vehicles to Par on May 24. At this time, DAVCO had not recorded its alleged interest in the vehicles with titling agencies in Texas or Arizona, and DAVCO did not file a financing statement to perfect its interest. Further, DAVCO had never possessed the vehicles. After the three vehicles were returned, Par acquired new titles in Texas in May, and DAVCO acquired new titles in Arizona in June. DAVCO ended its agreement with Tucker and demanded the vehicles be returned. Par and DAVCO filed cross-motions for summary judgment in bankruptcy court. DAVCO’s claim of ownership failed because DAVCO had never possessed or perfected an interest in the vehicles. The remaining question before the court was whether a seller exercising a right of reclaiming goods has priority over a secured creditor that has an unperfected interest.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Haines, 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 620,000 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 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 620,000 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
  • 35,600 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