There were two important typos in the last version, which an alert DIRTer spotted instantly. Thanks - and here's the corrected version.

Daily Development for Thursday, September 27, 2002

By: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
prandolph@cctr.umkc.edu

ATTORNEY/CLIENT; MALPRACTICE; UCC FILINGS: Attorney's failure to file UCC-1 financing statement in stock that seller is transferring in connection with transfer of all the stock in a company is negligence per se.

Lory v. Parsoff, 745 N.Y.S.2d 218 (N.Y. App. 2002),

Plaintiff alleged that the defendants (Parsoff and his law firm) negligently failed to file a UCC-1 financing statement that would have perfected his security interest in the stock of the company sold by plaintiff, Craftsman Sound and Security System ("Craftsman"), to Tony Amerigo and Paul Pettorino ("Purchasers"), the third-party defendants in this lawsuit. The plaintiff further asserted that the defendants falsely represented that they had prepared and filed the necessary documents to create a perfected security interest in Craftsman's assets.

The plaintiff originally retained Parsoff to represent him in the sale of his stock in Craftsman. The purchase agreement for the sale of the stock ("Purchase Agreement") called for the Purchasers to deposit all shares of Craftsman with Parsoff, who would act as escrow agent and return the shares to the plaintiff if the Purchasers breached any of their contractual obligations under the Purchase Agreement. The Purchase Agreement also stated that the plaintiff was entitled to a lien on all of Craftsman's assets if the Purchasers breached the terms of the Purchase Agreement.

The Purchasers subsequently defaulted, and the plaintiff regained complete ownership of Craftsman. Meanwhile, the Purchasers filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding in an attempt to avoid their obligations under the Purchase Agreement, which bankruptcy action was eventually dismissed. Consequently, plaintiffs eventually were restored to possession of the company.

But the plaintiff asserted injury in the bankruptcy as a consequence of loss of priority due to Parsoff's negligence. Parsoff admitted that there had been no UCC-1 financing statement filed in the county clerk's office in Albany or Suffolk County, and that as a consequence plaintiff alleged that it had been relegated to the position of a creditor with an unsecured claim against Craftsman in its bankruptcy proceeding, when Craftsman had properties to which a security interest would have attached.

During the bankruptcy proceeding, the plaintiff had accused the Purchasers of unlawfully removing office equipment, records and logs. He also had filed an action for civil and criminal contempt, which was later withdrawn, to prevent the Purchasers from occupying Craftsman's corporate offices. Upon commencement of plaintiff's legal malpractice action, the defendants brought a third-party action against the Purchasers seeking contribution and asserting that they were required to indemnify the defendants if they were found liable to pay damages to the plaintiff.

The court found that, under New York law, "[a]n attorney's failure to file a financing statement in the manner required by law to perfect his client's security interest constitutes negligence or malpractice as a matter of law."

The court then stated that the plaintiff had established a cause of action for summary judgment against defendants, even though the plaintiff regained ownership of Craftsman and its assets. The court stated that, "failure to file the UCC-1 statement is negligence per se and plaintiff is entitled to a determination as to what such negligence cost him in terms of damages." The court ruled that the plaintiff had presented a prima facie case for damages because the defendants acknowledged that there were no documents in their case file that indicated that the required UCC-1 financing statement was ever filed. The court therefore granted the plaintiff' motion for declaratory relief and directed that an inquest/hearing be commenced to permit the plaintiff to prove any damages he could establish as the result of the defendants' failure to file the UCC-1 financing statement as to Craftsman. However, the court refused to approve the plaintiff's request for the recovery of punitive damages, ruling that such damages were not warranted in this case because punitive damages are not recoverable for an ordinary breach of contract and the defendants' conduct did not rise to the level of moral turpitude and wanton dishonesty.

The New York Appellate Division upheld the trial court's decision that the defendants' failure to file a UCC financing statement in the manner necessary to perfect the client's security interest constituted malpractice as a matter of law. The appellate court further held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the cause of action by the plaintiff to recover an award of an attorney fee he incurred to retain alternative counsel as a result of the defendants' malpractice.

Additionally, the appellate court ruled that there was no merit to the defendants' challenge to the plaintiff's claim for a refund of the legal fee paid to the attorney's law firm in connection with the negligent representation.

[Note: Under revised Article 9 of the UCC, which became effective in New York and most other states on July 1, 2001, a security interest in stock would be considered an interest in "investment property." A security interest in investment property may be perfected by control, by filing, or, if the investment property is a certificated security, by possession. When the creditor perfects the security interest by filing, the local law of the jurisdiction in which the debtor is located governs perfection of the interest. The general rule, under revised Article 9, is that the law applicable to the perfection of security interests is the law of the debtor's location, which is generally the debtor's place of business (or, if the debtor is an individual, the individual's principal residence) unless the debtor is a "registered entity," such as a corporation, limited liability company, or limited partnership, in which case the location of the debtor is the state in which it was organized. Under revised Article 9, most financing statements are filed in a single state-wide office, such as the Secretary of State's office; there is no longer any need to file a financing statement in the local (county) office for collateral that is not related to real estate].

Reporter's Comment 1: As demonstrated the loss of lien perfection and priority because of the failure to properly file a UCC financing statement can have catastrophic consequences and can expose the offending attorney (and his or her law firm) to significant financial liability and professional embarrassment.

Reporter's Comment 2: There is now UCC insurance available from several title companies (First Amercan, Fidelity, and Stewart) that would prevent this problem from happening.

Editor's Comment: None of this is particularly surprising. But the case is a caution, since attornies often delegate compliance with UCC filings to relatively low level members of their office, whereas they often rely upon title companies to make real estate filings.

Readers are urged to respond, comment, and argue with the daily development or the editor's comments about it.

Items in the Daily Development section generally are extracted from the Quarterly Report on Developments in Real Estate Law, published by the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law. Subscriptions to the Quarterly Report are available to Section members only. The cost is nominal. For the last six years, these Reports have been collated, updated, indexed and bound into an Annual Survey of Developments in Real Estate Law, volumes 1‑6, published by the ABA Press. The Annual Survey volumes are available for sale to the public. For the Report or the Survey, contact Maria Tabor at the ABA. (312) 988 5590 or mtabor@staff.abanet.org

Items reported here and in the ABA publications are for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or in the forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true of all commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.

Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a source that is readily accessible by members of the general public, and should take that fact into account in evaluating confidentiality issues.

ABOUT DIRT:

DIRT is an Internet discussion group for serious real estate professionals. Message volume varies, but commonly runs 5 ‑ 10 messages per workday.

Daily Developments are posted every workday.

To subscribe to Dirt, send an e-mail to:

To:	ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu
Subject:	[Does not matter]
Text in body of message	Subscribe Dirt [your name]

To cancel your subscription to Dirt, send an e-mail to:

To:	ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu
Subject:	[Does not matter]
Text in body of message	Signoff Dirt

For information on other commands, send the message Help to the listserv address.

DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find this service more valuable, it is named "Brokerdirt." But residential specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you subscribe to Brokerdirt, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as Brokerdirt carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.

To subscribe to Brokerdirt, send an e-mail to:

To:	ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu
Subject:	[Does not matter]
Text in body of message	Subscribe Brokerdirt [your name]

To cancel your subscription to Brokerdirt, send an e-mail to:

To:	ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu
Subject:	[Does not matter]
Text in body of message	Signoff Brokerdirt

DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants permission for copying or distribution of Daily Developments for educational purposes, including professional continuing education, provided that no charge is imposed for such distribution and that appropriate credit is given to Professor Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.

DIRT has a WebPage at: http://www.umkc.edu/dirt/