{
  "id": 3601013,
  "name": "UNITED BANK OF BELVIDERE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DENNIS W. HARNISH et al., Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "United Bank v. Harnish",
  "decision_date": "1985-08-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 84\u20140689",
  "first_page": "1056",
  "last_page": "1058",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "135 Ill. App. 3d 1056"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "208 Neb. 423",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Neb.",
      "case_ids": [
        5310186
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/neb/208/0423-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 341,
    "char_count": 5160,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.753,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.10274286261477021
    },
    "sha256": "64b320d60e0dcb03d72ad83429c9dd39dde82f6ab979ef6ca4ed20930fe3c49f",
    "simhash": "1:76133776a982c24a",
    "word_count": 826
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:44:15.524885+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "UNITED BANK OF BELVIDERE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DENNIS W. HARNISH et al., Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE SCHNAKE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis was an action for conversion brought by the plaintiff, United Bank of Belvidere, against the defendant, McLay Grain Company, seeking to recover $11,416 based upon defendant\u2019s purchase of corn from Dennis Harnish. Plaintiff alleged that it held a security interest in the corn and, therefore, the purchase price should have been paid directly to it. The first two counts of plaintiff\u2019s complaint, which sought money damages against Dennis and Susan Harnish, were stayed when the Harnishes filed for bankruptcy and are not before this court. Following a bench trial on the third count, the circuit court of Boone County entered judgment for defendant on July 11, 1984. Plaintiff thereafter filed this appeal.\nThe Harnishes\u2019 farming operation had been financed by plaintiff since 1966 or 1967. On February 26, 1982, the Harnishes executed a promissory note for a $150,000 line of credit and a second promissory note and security agreement in the amount of $53,327.94. Both agreements listed collateral as:\n\u201cAll crops in bin or stored in commercial elevator. All crops growing or to be grown, all machinery now owned and hereafter acquired.\u201d\nOn February 23, 1978, financing statements covering \u201ccrops and grain\u201d at specific locations in Boone and Winnebago counties were filed in both counties. On January 17, 1983, continuation filings were filed in both counties.\nOn November 27 and November 29, 1982, defendant purchased a total of 5503.75 bushels of corn from Dennis Harnish. Defendant issued a check in Harnish\u2019s name alone for $11,426.15 as payment for the corn. Harnish did not turn over the check or its proceeds to plaintiff.\nWhile plaintiff raises numerous issues on appeal, we need not address these issues because we find that plaintiff\u2019s alleged security interest never \u201cattached\u201d to the corn purchased by defendant and was, therefore, unenforceable against defendant.\nSection 9 \u2014 203(1) of the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 26, par. 9 \u2014 203(1)) sets forth the requirements for attachment and states in relevant part:\n\u201c(1) ***, a security interest is not enforceable against the debtor or third parties with respect to the collateral and does not attach unless\n(a) *** the debtor has signed a security agreement which contains a description of the collateral and in addition, when the security interest covers crops growing or to be grown or timber to be cut, a description of the land concerned; and\n(b) value has been given; and\n(c) the debtor has rights in the collateral.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nIt is undisputed in the instant case that plaintiff\u2019s security agreement attempted to cover crops growing or to be grown, but did not include any description of the land concerned. Plaintiff argues, however, that its security interest did attach to the Harnishes\u2019 corn after it was harvested because at that point it was no longer \u201cgrowing\u201d and the real estate description requirement of section 9\u2014 203(1) was no longer applicable. Plaintiff relies primarily on In re Roberts (Bankr. Kan. 1984), 38 Bankr. 128, for his argument.\nIn Roberts the court addressed the analogous question of perfection and held that the creditor\u2019s financing statement did not perfect its security interest in the debtor\u2019s crops at the time of filing because it did not contain a description of the land concerned. The court held, however, that the security interest did become perfected when the crops were harvested because at that point the crops were no longer \u201cgrowing\u201d but had simply become one form of a \u201cfarm product,\u201d which did not require a description of the land concerned to be perfected. The creditor\u2019s financing statement in Roberts specifically listed \u201call farm products\u201d as collateral. Accord, Genoa National Bank v. Sorensen (1981), 208 Neb. 423, 304 N.W.2d 659.\nWe need not decide whether to adopt the rationale of Roberts in the present case, however, because unlike Roberts, there is no language in plaintiff\u2019s security agreements granting it a security interest in any harvested crops or farm products. Plaintiff\u2019s security agreement covered only \u201ccrops in bin or stored in commercial elevators.\u201d Plaintiff presented no evidence that the corn purchased by defendant had ever been \u201cin bin or stored in [a] commercial elevator.\u201d To the contrary, it appears from the record that Harnish harvested the corn and took it immediately to defendant for sale. Therefore, since plaintiff\u2019s security agreement failed to describe properly the corn which Dennis Harnish sold to defendant, its security interest did not attach to the corn under section 9 \u2014 203(1) and is unenforceable against defendant in this case.\nFor the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the circuit court of Boone County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHOPF and REINHARD, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE SCHNAKE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Theodore Liebovich and Linda Bumann Kream, both of Liebovieh & Gaziano, of Rockford, for appellant.",
      "Curtis R. Tobin II, of Johnson, Tobin & Ramon, of Belvidere, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "UNITED BANK OF BELVIDERE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DENNIS W. HARNISH et al., Defendant-Appellee.\nSecond District\nNo. 84\u20140689\nOpinion filed August 27, 1985.\nTheodore Liebovich and Linda Bumann Kream, both of Liebovieh & Gaziano, of Rockford, for appellant.\nCurtis R. Tobin II, of Johnson, Tobin & Ramon, of Belvidere, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1056-01",
  "first_page_order": 1078,
  "last_page_order": 1080
}