Bank of White Sulphur Springs, a West Virginia corporation, and Harold R. Moore v. Patriot Ford, Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., a West Virginia corporation, No. 21906 (W. Va. June 16, 1994) (Miller, J.): 191 W.Va. 339, 445 S.E.2d 522:
Resolving a dispute concerning the priority of purchase money security and repairman's liens, the Court held that the language in W. Va. Code § 38-11-3, governing repairmen's, materialmen's, and warehousemen's liens, which extends such liens to "any other person by whose authority or with whose consent the property was deposited," does not include a person or entity having a prior record security interest in the property which requires written consent to effect any improvements on or storage of the property where such written consent has not been obtained.
Transamerica Commercial Finance Corporation v. Blueville Bank of Grafton, a West Virginia banking institution, No. 21560 (W. Va. December 14, 1993) (McHugh, J.): 190 W.Va. 474, 438 S.E.2d 817:
Affirming the priority of a bank's security interest in certain inventory, the Court held (1) under W. Va. Code § 47-8-2, no partnership may conduct business under any name other than the names of the partners unless it registers its assumed name in the office of the clerk of the county commission; (2) unless a partnership's assumed name is registered pursuant to W. Va. Code § 47-8-2, the individual partners must be listed as debtors on any financing statement filed pursuant to W. Va. Code § 46-9-402(7); (3) a financing statement listing a partnership's unregistered assumed name may still be effective against other creditors if it is not seriously misleading pursuant to W. Va. Code § 46-9-402(8); and (4) whether listing a partnership's unregistered assumed name in a financing statement is seriously misleading pursuant to W. Va. Code § 46-9-402(8) is a question of fact to be determined by examining whether a reasonably prudent creditor searching the appropriate index for the financing statement would be misled so as to be unable to locate the financing statement.
Bank of Chapmanville, a West Virginia banking corporation v. Ralph Workman and Donna Workman, No. 19937 (W. Va. June 6, 1991) (Neely, J.): 185 W.Va. 161, 406 S.E.2d 58:
Reversing a directed verdict in favor of a bank which purchased a mobile home at a public sale it conducted which was only advertised for one day in the legal notices section of the local paper and was posted in the courthouse, the Court held that a secured party's sale of collateral must be commercially reasonable or the fair market value of the collateral will be presumed to be equal to the amount of the remaining debt. Moreover, the Court held that in order to recover a deficiency, a secured creditor must prove that the debt exceed the "fair market value" of the collateral.
Elkins Manor Associates, a limited partnership, and Elkins Manor, Inc., a corporation v. Eleanor Concrete Works, Inc., a corporation v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Lawrence D. Butcher, No. 19272 (W. Va. July 25, 1990) (Miller, J.): 183 W.Va. 501, 396 S.E.2d 463:
In a breach of contract action for delivery of delayed and defective building components, the Court held that the sales provisions of the UCC do not apply to a building construction contract unless the party asserting the UCC provision demonstrates substantial justification for its use.
Mary M. Welch, et al. v. Don B. Cayton, et al., No. 19144 (W. Va. June 26, 1990) (Neely, C.J.): 183 W.Va. 252, 395 S.E.2d 496:
Where purchaser of oil and gas from lessee of mineral rights which were not owned by lessor sought to avoid liability to actual owner under good faith purchaser for value rule, the Court held that such rule does not protect a purchaser whose seller did not receive at least "voidable title" in a "transaction of purchase."
E. Byrd Daniel v. Cecil D. Stevens and the Guaranty National Bank, a national banking association, No. 19042 (W. Va. May 18, 1990) (McHugh, J.): 183 W.Va. 95, 394 S.E.2d 79:
In affirming a trial court's rejection of a purchaser's assertion of equitable estoppel against a lienholder which allegedly informed the purchaser that its secured interest in the property had been released, the Court held that equitable estoppel may not be asserted to avoid a prior perfected security interest in collateral where the subsequent creditor or purchaser, as in this case, fails to use available and convenient means of assuring priority, such as waiting until a termination statement or written release has been filed before acquiring an interest in the collateral from the debtor. On another issue, the Court rejected the purchaser's attack on the security agreement on the ground that only the husband actually signed the agreement of which his wife was also a party, holding that0 the husband's signature was sufficient notice to interested persons that the secured party had a valid interest in the listed collateral to the extent of the husband's ownership.
Pinnacle Mining Company of Northern West Virginia v. Duncan Aircraft Sales of Florida, Inc., No. 18855 (W. Va. November 30, 1989) (Miller, J.): 182 W.Va. 307, 387 S.E.2d 542:
Where buyer attacked seller's title at the time the contract was executed in order to justify its attempted revocation, the Court held that, under UCC 2-101, there is no requirement that the seller have title to the goods at the time the contract is executed, but only that the seller have title at the time the goods are delivered.