To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




In re Shirel

Law Dictionary

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Font size

Commercial Law Keyed to Lopucki

Citation. In re Shirel, 251 B.R. 157, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 796, 42 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 604 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. July 17, 2000)

Brief Fact Summary. Kevin Shirel, (Petitioner), moves to avoid a lien by Sight ‘N Sound Appliance Center, Inc., (Respondent) on the grounds that Respondent is not a secured creditor.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A security agreement is not enforceable if it does not contain language that describes the collateral sufficiently so that a third party could reasonably identify the items that are subject to the security interest.

Facts. Petitioner applied for a credit card with Respondent. The credit application contains seven pages of single spaced small print and was signed on the first page by Petitioner. On the fourth page there is language that purports to be a security agreement. This language describes the collateral as “all merchandise purchased on the account.” Petitioner used the credit card to purchase a refrigerator. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner filed for bankruptcy. Petitioner claims that the credit card application does not create a security interest in the refrigerator.

Issue. Whether the phrase “all merchandise” sufficiently describes the collateral as to create a security interest in the refrigerator.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following