brief case

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Brief Case
Citation of Case: Maynard Savings Bank v. Henry George Banke III and Pamela Sue Banke, 275 B.R. 375
Facts: On March 24, 2000, Pamela Banke asked for a short-term loan from the Plaintiff Maynard Savings Bank where she received a $10,000 loan that was meant to mature on of October 15, 2000. Mrs. Banke pledged the boat as security for the loan. The boat was bought in 1989 by Henry Banke, and its title and registration have to date been under Mr. Banke. Henry used the boat for a while to operate a fishing guide as well other small businesses. The businesses showed a loss for the first two years and later a small amount of gain for another two years. This resulted in discontinuity of the business until the debtors filed their Chapter 7 petition. The bank allowed the boat as collateral with the belief that it was worth $10,000 only to find out later that it stood at $6,000. Mr. Banke also wanted to sell the boat to pay attorney fees, the boat at the time was now worth $4,000, and he ended up talking to his wife where he found out that she had pledged the boat as collateral to the bank. The debtors argue that the Bank’s lien on the boat, motor, and trailer is not valid while the Bank disputes that Mrs. Banke acted fraudulently with the intention of robbing the bank when she pledged Mr. Banke’s boat. The debtors argue that Henry is not liable to the terms of the loan. Mrs. Banke asserts that she was unaware that she was not listed as a co-owner of the boat.

Issue 1: Are the Debtors entitled to lien avoidance on tools of the trade?
Issue 2: Does the defendant act fraudulently with the intention to rob the bank?
Issue 3: Does the plaintiff act under justifiable reliance?
Issue 4: Does the Plaintiff have a valid lien on the collateral?
Decision: No/Yes/Yes//No
Reason: (Judge Kilburg, Iowa United States Bankruptcy Court) The Debtors had not been conducting any business with the boat, both at the time of the loan and time of filing the bankruptcy petition. Consequently, they are not entitled to lien avoidance on the boat. Mrs. Banke’s understanding of loan procedures is more than that of a reasonable bystander because she was a loan officer herself. Therefore, she ought to have known about her ownership of the boat before asking for a loan. In her case, she misrepresented the facts with the intention to rob the bank. The bank justifiably relied on the known background of Mrs. Banke being a professional loan officer and trusted what she represented- that she owned the boat. Mr. Banke, who is the rightful owner of the boat, motor, and trailer, did not take part in the loan agreement, and neither his name nor signature appears as a debtor on the Bank’s financing statement. Therefore, making any security interest on the boat is unenforceable.