FIRST NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOSEPH ROBERT DANIEL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A debtor cannot avoid a bank's lien on collateral under section 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 if the original security agreement and note predate the Act's effective date, even if a subsequent renewal note was executed after the Act's enactment.
Appellant Daniel granted security interests in a boat, trailer, office equipment, furnishings, and law books to secure promissory notes. A later insta…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Novation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
By a security agreement dated March 29, 1978, appellant Daniel conveyed a boat and boat trailer to First National Bank and Trust Company in Macon, Georgia, as collateral for a promissory note, dated January 30, 1978, in the amount of $9,000. By another security agreement dated May 19, 1978, appellant conveyed office equipment, furnishings, and law books to the bank as collateral for an $8,000 note, dated May 1, 1978, and due 91 days thereafter.
On August 28, 1980, appellant and the bank executed a 48-month installment note in the principal amount of $14,196.43. This note represented no fresh advance and was col-lateralized with the same property conveyed in the security agreements dated March 29, 1978, and May 19, 1978. The issue in this case is whether the appellant debtor may avoid the fixing of the bank’s lien on his office equipment, furnishings, and law books under section 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. 11 U.S.C.A. sec. 522(f) (1979).
If the relevant note postdated the Act’s effective date, October 7, 1979, the debtor would have this power.
However, the district court correctly concluded that the note dated August 28, 1980, did not constitute a novation of the note dated May 1, 1978, which accompanied the security agreement covering appellant’s professional books and equipment. “A simple contract regarding the same matter and on no new consideration, does not destroy another between the same parties ...” Ga.Code Ann. sec. 20-115 (1977). “A new note given in lieu of an existing note between the same parties and for the same indebtedness, even at a higher rate of interest and due at a later date, is not given for a new consideration, and, therefore, does not constitute a novation.” Citizens & Southern National Bank v. C.E. Scheider, 139 Ga.App. 475, 228 S.E. 2d 611 (1976); Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Hei-necke Instruments Co., 441 F. 2d 887, 892 (5th Cir.1971).
Therefore, although the note dated August 28, 1980, did extend the debtor’s repayment period, it did not constitute a novation; rather, it was merely a renewal and consolidation of the two notes dated January 30, 1978, and May 1, 1978. See King v. Edel, 69 Ga.App. 607, 26 S.E. 2d 365 (1943).
The Supreme Court has recently concluded that section 522(f) is not retroactive from November 6, 1978, its date of enactment. United States v. Security Industrial Bank, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 407, 74 L.Ed.2d 235 (1982). Thus, the appellant debtor cannot avoid the bank’s lien created in 1978.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Billings v. Avco Colo. Indus. Bank, 838 F.2d 405 (10th Cir. 1988)…ial Services), 724 F. 2d 798, 800 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam); In re Manuel, 507 F. 2d at 993. Others hold that the purchase money status of a loan may survive refinancing. See Pristas, 742 F. 2d at 801-02; First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Daniel, 701 F. 2d 141, 142 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam). The Tenth Circuit has not ruled on this issue. Courts holding that refinancing automatically extinguishes the purchase money character of an obligation create an easily applied, bright line rule. To reach this res…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Sec. Indus. Bank, 459 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1982)
- Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Heinicke Instruments Co., 441 F.2d 887 (5th Cir. 1971)