In re Webber
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas
350 B.R. 344 (2006)

- Written by Douglas Halasz, JD
Facts
William Griggs entered into a stock-purchase agreement with Tony Webber (debtor) in which Griggs agreed to sell all of his stock in a company to Webber for $750,000, comprised of a $50,000 payment and a promissory note for $700,000. The note indicated that the stock secured payment of the note. Moreover, per the terms of the agreement, William indorsed the certificate representing the stock for transfer and gave the certificate to the company’s attorney to hold on to until Webber finished paying off the note. The company’s attorney acknowledged that he was holding the stock certificate that had been issued to William pursuant to the stock-purchase agreement terms. Webber made some payments on the note. Thereafter, William passed away and left his entire estate to his wife, Joan Griggs (creditor). Webber stopped making payments on the note and filed for bankruptcy. During bankruptcy proceedings, Joan filed a proof of claim and sought payment of the remaining amount owed on the note. Webber objected to Joan’s proof of claim and argued, among other things, that Joan held an unperfected interest in the stock because Joan did not possess the stock and had failed to file a financing statement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bohm, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.