Quick Links |
Memorandum of Decision Re: Priority of Security Interests
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
BLUE LAKE FOREST PRODUCTS, No. 91-10333
INC.,
Debtor.
___________________________/
PILOT LUMBER COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v. A.P. No. 91-0058
HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
______________________________/
In the event of default by Buyer [Blue Lake], Buyer shall, on demand of Seller, assemble all of the Pilot Ridge timber subject to its control and make it available to Seller at a place to be designated by Seller and Buyer shall permit Seller to take immediate possession of all such col- lateral. [emphasis added] In 1991, Blue Lake filed its Chapter 11 petition. The Bank is owed some $9 million, and Pilot is owed about $131,000.00. By this adversary proceeding, Pilot seeks to establish that its security interest in the timber from the property is superior to that of the Bank. The Bank is of course completely correct in arguing that neither the original Log Purchase Agreement nor the Assignment in Trust gave Pilot a security interest in the timber itself. The Agreement is completely silent as to security, and the Assignment mentions only the contract rights, not the timber. It is elementary commercial law that a financing statement does not itself create a security interest, which is limited to that contained in the security agreement. However, in determining what the parties have agreed is to be security, the court must look to all relevant documents. In re Amex-Protein Dev. Corp., 504 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir.1974). This includes the amendment, which contains language clearly establishing that the timber is Pilot's collateral. Although there was no valid security agreement relating to the timber until 1990, Pilot's security interest in the timber is still superior to the Bank's. Pursuant to California Commercial Code section 9312(5)(a), conflicting security interests rank according to priority in time of filing or perfection. Even though Pilot did not have a valid security interest until 1990, its priority relates back to its filing, which was prior to the Bank's. See White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code (3rd), section 26-4, pp. 498-99. For the foregoing reasons, Pilot's motion for summary judgment will be granted and judgment will be entered declaring that Pilot's security interest in the timber cut from the subject property is superior to the Bank's security interest. Counsel for Pilot shall submit an appropriate form of judgment, which counsel for the Bank has approved as conforming to this decision. Dated: September 10, 1991 _______________________ Alan Jaroslovsky U.S. Bankruptcy |

