Yaddehige v. Xpert Technologies
Michigan Court of Appeals
2019 WL 1746077 (2019)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Dr. Sena Yaddehige (plaintiff) loaned money to Creative Lighting Solutions (Creative) and received, as collateral, a security interest in all assets of Creative. The loaned money was placed in a deposit account. Creative consistently paid a monthly payment to Yaddehige against the loan and always had sufficient collateral to satisfy the loan. Xpert Technologies, Inc. (Xpert) (defendant) obtained a judgment against Creative in a lawsuit, which Creative paid out of the deposit account’s funds. Yaddehige filed suit in Michigan state court against Xpert, claiming that under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), he had a perfected, first-priority security interest in the funds that Creative had used to satisfy Xpert’s judgment. Yaddehige sought an injunction to keep Xpert from collecting from Creative and asserted that Xpert would be unjustly enriched if allowed to keep the funds. There was no evidence of collusion between Creative and Xpert to violate Yaddehige’s security interest. The trial court issued a summary disposition for Xpert, and Yaddehige appealed to the Michigan appellate court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.
