Yatooma v. Barker

73 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 176 (2010)

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

Yatooma v. Barker

Michigan Court of Appeals
73 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 176 (2010)

Facts

In July 2006, Christopher Yatooma (plaintiff) loaned Ronald Omilian, United Soils, Inc., Earth Products, Inc., Earth Supplies, Inc., and C.A.R.D. Properties, L.L.C. (collectively, the Omilian entities) $230,000. The loan agreement provided that the loan was secured by “all of the assets and personal property of” the Omilian entities. The agreement further provided that Yatooma had a security interest in “all collateral.” Each Omilian entity filed a Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) financing statement covering all assets and personal property, including tangible and intangible property in which the entity presently had or later acquired any rights. Independent Bank (the bank) (defendant) had also loaned money to the Omilian entities. In December 2006, United Soils filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. A few months later, some of the Omilian entities, including United Soils, entered into an agreement to surrender their assets to the bank. The agreement included a right-of-first-refusal clause that gave Omilian or any Omilian-controlled entity the right to purchase back the assets if the bank gave Omilian notice that the bank intended to sell the assets to a third party. The bank subsequently gave notice that the bank had agreed to sell part of the assets to a third party, and Omilian-controlled entity AKO Enterprises-Waterford, Inc. (AKO) exercised its right to purchase the assets under the right-of-first-refusal clause. After the bank sold the assets to AKO, Yatooma sued the bank for conversion and tortious interference with contract. Yatooma claimed that the loan agreement had given him a secured interest in the right of first refusal and that the bank had not honored that secured interest. The bank moved for summary disposition, arguing that Yatooma did not have a security interest in the right of first refusal because the right had been created after Yatooma had entered into the loan agreement. The trial court denied summary disposition, finding a question of material fact regarding whether Omilian and Yatooma had intended after-acquired property to be included in Yatooma’s security interest. The bank appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

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 735,000 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 735,000 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 735,000 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