statements is the inclusion therein of the mailing address of the debtor. That section also provides in subsection 5 that a financing statement 'substantially complying' with the requirements of the section is effective. We think that a financing statement which does not contain the debtor's address does not substantially comply with the formal requirements of the Code. Therefore, the filing officer in the Secretary's office had the right to return the conditional sales contract to the petitioner, and it was incumbent upon petitioner to resubmit a statement which contained the debtor's address.
Our interpretation of section 9-403(1) is that it refers to the presentation for filing of a financing statement which substantially complies with the Code's formal requirements for financing statements, and one which the filing officer would, therefore, be duty-bound to accept.
Petitioner's second argument is based upon section 9-401(2) of the Code. That section provides:
'A filing which is made in good faith in an improper place or not in all of the places required by this section is nevertheless effective with regard to any collateral as to which the filing complied with the requirements of this Article and is also effective with regard to collateral covered by the financing statement against any person who has knowledge of the contents of such financing statement.'
The Referee rejected this argument on the ground that petitioner had produced no evidence that it came within the provisions of this section. We agree with the Referee. First, petitioner's filing in the Prothonotary's office did not 'comply with the requirements of this Article,' since the conditional sales contract filed there did not contain the debtor's address. Second, there is no evidence that any person, whether it be the trustee or of the financing statement which of the financing statement wich was filed in the Prothonotary's office. Petitioner contends that it was the trustee's burden to produce evidence that the unsecured creditors had no such knowledge. But as the trustee points out in his brief, the court in the case of In the Matter of Luckenbill, 156 F.Supp. 129 (E.D.Pa.1957), regarded the knowledge of the trustee as relevant to this section. In any event, we think it was the burden of the petitioner to show that in all respects it came within the provisions of this section which it had invoked as an exception to the ordinary filing requirements of the Code. This it has failed to do.
We see no error in the Referee's Order.
SUR MORION FOR REARGUMENT
On May 12, 1962, we entered an Order affirming the order of the referee in bankruptcy, and dismissing the reclamation petition of the Metropolitan Equipment Company. That Order was based in part upon the erroneous assumption that a certain conditional sales contract filed in the prothonotary's office in Berks County did not contain the mailing address of the debtor. It has since been called to the attention of the Court that the parties proceeded on this erroneous assumption and that in fact the mailing address of the debtor was included in the conditional sales contract described above.
We think the referee should have the opportunity to make the appropriate findings of fact and to re-evaluate his former opinion in light of this new evidence. 'Whether a prior order should be re-examined, and, if re-examined, whether it should be vacated or modified is normally a matter of sound discretion with the referee or district judge as the case may be * * *' Moore's Federal Practice, Vol. 7, p. 212. We, therefore, enter the following Order:
And now, to wit, this 12th day of June, 1962, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of the Metropolitan Equipment Company for reclamation of certain equipment is remanded to the referee in bankruptcy for reconsideration in light of the above memorandum. Meanwhile, the referee's original order as affirmed by this Court shall stand.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.