Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Secured Lender Primes Earlier Federal Tax Lien
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, on Oct. 31, 2014, held in a split decision that a lender's unrecorded lien primed an earlier unrecorded federal tax lien on a Chapter 11 debtor's real property. In re Restivo Auto Body, Inc., 2014 WL 5488166 (4th Cir. Oct. 31, 2014) (2-1). Relying on “Maryland['s] common law ' doctrine of equitable conversion,” the court reasoned that the lender was entitled “to the same protections as a [good faith] purchaser for value who takes title free and clear of all subsequent liens regardless of recordation.” Id. at *2. The dissent, however, argued that federal law governs “the priority of federal tax liens”; the debtor taxpayer had no “unencumbered title to ' give” the lender; and that the majority erred by applying “state law to determine the priority of the IRS's tax lien to the property,” an issue to be “determined solely by federal law.” Id. The Restivo case reassures secured lenders unaware of a borrower's preexisting tax lien, however, as it protects them against the government's nondisclosure.
Relevance of the Case
To protect itself against competing lienors, such as federal tax liens, a secured lender will promptly record its security interest as soon as its borrower signs a security agreement or mortgage. Any delay in recording may enable an intervening secured lender, judgment creditor or bankruptcy trustee to prime the earlier lender. In Restivo, however, the lender inexplicably delayed recording its lien by five weeks and was still able to prime the intervening recorded federal tax lien that had arisen months before the lender made the secured loan.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?