Zimmerman

Southern California Bank v. Zimmerman

Good Law
120 F.3d 950·97 Daily Journal DAR 9053·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 17596·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5592
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 15, 1997No. 95-56841California3,031 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thompson, J.

Reuben Lynn Hilde and Maureen McDowell Hilde are debtors in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings in the Central District of California. Southern California Bank (the Bank), a judgment creditor of the Hildes, appeals the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (the BAP). The BAP held, reversing the bankruptcy court, that under 11 U.S.C. § 544 , the Hildes’ bankruptcy trustee could avoid the Bank’s lien on the Hildes’ nonexempt personal property because the Bank had not perfected its lien by the time the Hildes filed their bankruptcy petition. In re Hilde, 189 B.R. 776, 786 (9th Cir.BAP 1995).

The bankruptcy court and the BAP both determined that the issue whether the Bank’s lien was avoidable depended upon whether the lien was “perfected.”

Section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code makes the avoidance powers of the trustee contingent upon state law. See 11 U.S.C. § 544 ; Farm Credit Bank of St. Louis v. Lucas, 152 B.R. 244 , 247 n. 3 (C.D.Ill.1993), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Appeal of Swartz, 18 F.3d 413 (7th Cir.1994). Thus, “if perfection is not a concept under [state] law, then it is not a valid concept under the Bankruptcy Code.” Id.

Because we conclude that section 708.110 of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.