Re: 오늘밤 담보물권법 마지막 질문

[김동현]

다음 질문에 답하면서 케이스를 이해하게 될 것입니다.
판결 결과로 
115000불 경매대금은 어디로 가는가? 


1.전부 은행에게--어째서?
2. 일부는 FUNK에게 일부는 은행에게--어째서? 일부가 무엇인지 구별할 수 있는가?
3. 29673.73달러만 FUNK에게--어째서




두번째 질문: 어째서 FUNK는 입증에 실패했는가?

수업을 준비하면서 읽었을 때와 달리 지속적인 변호사님의 질문들 덕분에 더 깊이 분석하고 생각하게 되어 수업 중에 케이스에 대한 이해를 더욱 깊이 할 수 있었던 것 같습니다. 

2번이 정답이라고 생각합니다.

The issue of the case relied on the understanding of the third paragraph. 

The auction produced some $115,000. Of this, the portion resulting from the sale of specific items described in the Funk-Sullivan sales agreement is concededly Funk's.

 - The total amount from the auction was $115,000
 - The portion resulting from the sale of the specified items in the Funk-Sullivan sales agremeent went to Funk. Hence the phrase "concededly Funk's" in the last part of the sentence. Ackowledging that the portion of the sale of specific items could be identified.

 - Unless all the items were on wholesale for the $115,000 amount, I believe that the auction would have recorded each item allowing Funk and the banks to distinguish the amount of proceeds from each inventory. 
 - The amount $115,000 first subtracts the amount by the specified inventory's proceed which have been identified.  

Funk claims in addition only the $29,673.73 arrearage, and the circuit court of Piatt County held it was entitled to the funds.

 - Funk now claims "in addition" to the original inventory proceeds the $29,673.73 arrearage that was supposed to be put in to the escrow account. 
 - Funk claims this amount because they believe that the money used to purchase the other inventory (new inventory) which according to the security agreement belongs to the bank, but since was purchased with the money that should have been put into the escrow account, the new eqiupment was purchased with Funk's proceeds. 
 - From this they bring the argument that the arrearage should be subtracted from the auction sale of the new inventory. 
 - The funds referred to is the $29,673.73



The appellate court reversed and remanded with directions to distribute the funds to the bank. (92 Ill. App.3d 659.)
 - The funds again refer to $29,673.73



We granted leave to appeal. The controlling issue before us is whether the proceeds of the collateral sold by Sullivan were sufficiently identified to subject them to Funk's security interest when the proof of identity consists only of a showing that the account into which they were deposited was also used for the purchase of new inventory.
 - The issue statement was long but stated that "proof of identity consits of only showing that the account into which they were deposited was also for the purchase of new inventory." 
 - By specifically stating that the evidence was for the new inventory and not the original inventory, I believe that the issue of the identification dividing the original and new inventory was not at hand. 
 - Thus the "proceeds of the collateral sold" refers to the amount from $115,000-(the amount for the proceeds from the specified items, which I believe the court would have on record)
 - Now the true issue is whether the proceeds from the new inventory could be tracked back to the original specified inventory's proceeds. To determine if the proceeds could be tracked or identified the court adopted the "lowest intermediate balance" rule.
 - If during the 18 month period the sale of the orginal inventory and proceeds were put into the general business account, the account would have that number.


For example, if the Sullivan's bank account had $10,000 at the beginning of the 18 months and then after the proceeds and sale from the specified inventory showed $39,673.73 and no other transactions were made then the lowest intermediate balance would be "$29,673.73" and would go to Funk. 
 - If from the $39,673.73 in the previous example Sullivan made $10,000 more but spent $40,000 then the balance would be $9,673.73 and Funk would only have priority security interest in the $9,673.73 even if Sullivan made $100,000 after the balance was $9,673.73. This would be because the $20,000 spent by Sullivan is now impossible to indentify.

- The identification calculates by subtracting the original funds of the (Sullivan), then the funds that have been secured (Funk's) 
<https://cw-cpa.com/how-does-the-lowest-intermediate-balance-rule-for-tracing-work/>

 

Conclusion

 - From the $115,000 would be subtracted the amount that resulted from the direct sale of specificed inventory by Funk 
 - The remaining amount would go to the bank
 - $29,673.73 could not be awared to Funk in this case for lack of evidence (Sullivan's account information)

Looking at the casetext from the court of appeals judegment it states that 

"Funk retained a security interest in certain specifically listed items of farm-equipment inventory (referred to by the parties as "bill of sale items")

...

In this appeal, Funk and the bank each claims that it has a prior perfected security interest in the $29,673.73 now on deposit with the trial court.

The gross receipts of the auction totaled $115,871.52. Some bill of sale items were sold, and the bank has conceded that Funk — under its prior perfected security interest in those items — was entitled to their cash proceeds. Funk, on the other hand, has claimed only the $29,673.73 arrearage, and the parties therefore stipulated to the distribution of all but that amount of the auction receipts.

Thus, the funds now held by the court represent receipts from the sale of farm equipment other than bill of sale items. "

https://casetext.com/case/co-funk-son-inc-v-sullivan-equipment

두번째 질문: 어째서 FUNK는 입증에 실패했는가?

 - Funk needed to show that he had priority over the bank's security interst because the proceeds came from the sale of after-acquired property (the bank's) but did not offer evidence of the balance of Sullivan's account.

 - 정확하게 lowest intermediate balance 찾을 수 없었기 떄문에 New inventory를 구매하기 위해서 사용 되었던 금액이 Funk가 담보를 갖고 있던 inventory의 판매에서 나왔는지 Sullivan의 개인재산 혹은 bank의 대출에서 받은 돈의 출처를 밝힐 수 없어서 입증에 실패를 한 것 같습니다. 

Comment

 - 피고의 계좌 정보를 어떻게 파악하는지 의문이었지만 디스커버리를 통해서 받을 수 있다고 배우게 되었습니다. 

 - 처음에 읽을 때에는 단순히 $115,000에서 Funk의 몫과 Bank의 몫을 구별하지 못해서 LIB 룰을 사용했다고 생각했는데 수업을 들으면서 연구생님들의 답변과 변호사님의 질문들 때문에 몇번을 문장을 다시 읽게 되고 이슈가 $115,000중에 Funk와 Bank의 몫을 찾는 것이 아닌 Funk의 주장인 New inventory도 Specified inventory의 재정을 구매한 것이기 때문에 Arrearage amount인 $29,673.73을 New inventory에서 뺄 수 있다는 주장이 었다고 생각하게 되었습니다. 

 - Securred transation이 합리적으로 그 돈의 출처를 밝힐 수 있다면 Perfect된 것에 빚의 규모와 관계 없이 우선권을 주게 되는 것을 보게 되었고 또한 증거 불충분으로 명백히 부실운영한 Sullivan이 본 사건에서는 미채납 금액 (arrearage)을 내지 않아도 되는 것 또한 신기했습니다. 



 - 의문이 들었던 것은 Arrearage를 본 사건을 통해서 받지 못했더라도 추후에 90%를 받기로 했던 specified inventory, equipement의 proceeds의 판매를 통해서 얻게 된 금액에 대해서는 우선권이 아직 유효할 것 같은데 맞는지 의문이 들었습니다.

 - 또한 결국에 Sullivan이 돈을 다 갚기 전에 파산이 되는 경우에는 bankruptcy court에서 Sullivan의 account를 볼 수 있게 되어 trace 하게 되면 "lowest intermediate balance" 금액을 알게 될텐데 이 경우에 그 금액이 알고보니 $29,673.73 보다 높더라도 이미 재판이 끝났기 때문에 Funk가 bankruptcy court에서도 우선권을 주장하지 못하게 되는지 궁금했습니다.

개인적으로 만약의 위와 같이 증명이 된다면 본가사건은 $115,000에서 $29,673.73을 빼려고 한거였고 새롭게 공개된 정보에서는 "lowest intermediate balance"를 찾게 되었으니 $29,673.73을 받을 수 있을 것 같은데 올바르게 이해했습니까?

감사합니다. 

[타조]

I had a hard time understanding this case during the class. But now after a few days and revisiting the case, I think I understand it a lot better especially reading your summary/answer/conclusion. Thanks a lot! The part in particular where you excerpted the appellate court opinion helped a lot.