HomeMy WebLinkAbout0856 BADCOCK V. 3ERTS - CASE NO. 74-724
it "expressly provides otherwise." Law's claim of lien is
based upon Section G77.7-209, Florida Statutes. Subsection
(3) thereof provides in part as follows:
"A warehouseman's lien for charges and
expenses under subsection (1) is also
effective against any person who so entrusted
the bailor with possession of the goods that
a pledge of them by him to a good faith pur-
chaser for value would have been valid
The official comment to §677.7-209, Uniform
Commercial Code, found on page 580, of Volume 19 B,
Florida Statutes Annotated, states: -
"Where the third party is the holder of a
security interest, the rights of the warehouse-
man depend on the priority given to a hypothetical
bona fide pledgee by Article 9, particularly
Section 9-312. Thus the special priority granted
to statutory liens by Section 9-310 does not apply
to liens under subsection (1) of this subsection,
since subsection (3) 'expressly provides other-
wise' within the meaning of Sectian 9-310."
This conclusion is required when Section 679.9-310 and
Section 677.7-209 are read together: It necessarily follows
i
f
~ that Law's statutory warehouseman's lien under Section 677.7-
~ 209 is inferior to Badcock's perfected purchase money
s
a •
; security interest.
~
~
. It is noted that the result in this case under
i
the Code is the same as it would have been under pre-Code
~
~ law. Prior to January 1, 1967, the rule in Florida was that
~
~
~ the holder of an unrecorded conditional sales contract had a
:f
` superior right over a warehouseman who subsequently asserted
f3
:2
a lien for storage, even though both had acted in good faith f
~
and without knowledge of the respective rights of ther other. "
;
See Dade National Bank of Miami v. University Transfer &
= Storage, Fla., 151 So 2d. 868, 3 DCA, (1963); and First
~ti
_ t
- 4 - -
~ ~
ri=j ° 237 PACE 855
BOOK -
r
:r;*;
~''`~t - - ~ -
~
~ - k ~
_