•  
  •  
 

Washington Law Review

anon

Abstract

Filing requirements under the Connecticut enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code have been construed by two recent decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In one case, a creditor duly filed a "security agreement" which the debtor, "Excel Stores, Inc.," had inadvertently signed "Excel Department Stores." Upon debtor's adjudication as a bankrupt, creditor filed a reclamation petition. The district court denied the petition, holding that the security agreement was not properly signed in accordance with Uniform Commercial Code section 9-402(1). On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed and held: Use of "Excel Department Stores" instead of debtor's true name, "Excel Stores, Inc.," in a security agreement is a "minor error.., not seriously misleading," and substantially complies with the formal requisites of a financing statement, Uniform Commercial Code section 9-402. In re Excel Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 961 (2d Cir. 1965). In the second case, a creditor prepared a financing statement, typing the parties' names and addresses in appropriate spaces. Debtor signed the statement, but creditor did not, due to a misinterpretation of the form's instructions. Both the financing statement and the security agreement, the latter also lacking creditor's signature, were duly filed. Debtor was subsequently adjudged bankrupt. The district court affirmed the referee's allowance of creditor's petition for reclamation. On appeal to the Second Circuit, affirmed. Held: Insertion of a creditor's name in the body of a financing statement, without a signature, is sufficient as a "signing" within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code sections 1-201(39) and 9-402. Benedict v. Lebowitz, 346 F.2d 120 (2d Cir. 1965).

First Page

180

Download

Share

COinS