Manchester v. Arvest Bank

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reformulated and answered a certified question concerning perfection of a security interest in a personal-use horse trailer for which the Oklahoma Tax Commission had issued a discretionary certificate of title. The court held that because the trailer was not required to be titled under Oklahoma law, perfection was accomplished by filing a UCC-1 financing statement rather than by notation of the lien on the certificate of title. The court answered the reformulated question in favor of the bank.

Holdings

1. The horse trailer was not a travel trailer or other vehicle within the statutory definition requiring title and registration under Oklahoma law.
2. The discretionary issuance of a certificate of title for collateral not required to be titled does not make title notation the exclusive method of perfecting a security interest.
3. A creditor perfects a security interest in a personal-use trailer that is not required to be titled by filing a UCC-1 financing statement, even if the owner may obtain a certificate of title and the creditor is not named on it.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a personal-use horse trailer with a dressing room qualifies as a travel trailer or other vehicle requiring title under Oklahoma law.
2. Whether the issuance of a discretionary certificate of title for collateral not required to be titled makes title notation the exclusive method of perfecting a security interest.
3. Whether filing a UCC-1 financing statement perfects a security interest in a personal-use horse trailer that may, but need not, be titled and on which the creditor is not named.

Disposition

other