“Samora chose to accept … misrepresentations rather than … investigate the transaction after discovering the document was a warranty deed with the name of an individual [Wasia] she had never met.” (Opinion). Samora was the victim of a complex real estate fraud. As part of the fraud, she relied on misrepresentations about a warranty deed she signed, and unknowingly transferring title to Wasia. Wasia deeded the house to Saxon for a loan. Deutsche Bank (DB), Saxon’s trustee, sought to quiet title. The appellate court held that the Samora-Wasia deed was valid. As a consequence: 1) Samora’s claims accrued when she alerted the DA to the fraud, 2) there was no fraud in the factum because she knew she signed a deed, and 3) DB (who was not “closely related” to Saxon) was a holder in due course. Thus, the deed was not voided and the Wasia-Saxon deed was not a spurious lien. Title quieted in Saxon.
Tag Archives: UCC
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, and Saxon Mortgage, v. Veronica E. Samora, 2013COA81 (May 23, 2013)
This case could be the perfect bar exam question on secured transactions. It has it all: perfection of security interests, purchase-money secured interests (PMSI), priority disputes, and 206 head of cattle. Smith, from OK, borrows money from Great Plains, secured by Smith’s cattle. Great Plains files a UCC statement in OK. Smith sells 206 cattle to Mount, a CO rancher financed by Cattle Consultants, who file a UCC statement against the cattle in CO. Everyone claims an interest the 206 cattle, but Great Plains wins. Its interest, perfected in OK, had priority because that is where the cattle were “produced” under the Federal Food Security Act. So, Mount purchased subject to Great Plains’ lien. Consultants had a PMSI in the cattle, but it did not have priority because Consultants did not meet the requirements for a superior PMSI in livestock. So, Great Plains had priority over Consultants.