USA Foreclosure Wiki

Bank of White Sulphur Springs v. Patriot Ford, Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. (1994)

3 min read

Bank of White Sulphur Springs v. Patriot Ford, Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. (1994)

Citation: 191 W. Va. 339, 445 S.E.2d 522 · Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, No. 21906 · Decided: June 16, 1994 · Opinion: Miller, J.

Source note (2026-10-18):

Opinion text retrieved 2026-10-17 from the Caselaw Access Project’s static copy of the West Virginia Reports (static.case.law, W. Va. volume 191), an unofficial host. CAP indexes the case as “Bank of White Sulphur Springs v. Ford.”

Facts

Harold Moore financed a 1988 Ford Bronco with the Bank, which recorded its lien on the face of the West Virginia title and later took a second security agreement. The agreement required Moore to keep the vehicle in good condition and barred it from being “altered, repaired, stored, transported or enhanced in value without the written consent of Bank.” In 1991 Moore had Patriot Ford perform USD 1,431.91 of engine repairs and did not pay. Patriot Ford kept the vehicle, claiming a common-law repairman’s lien, the statutory improver’s lien and a common-law storage lien. After Moore defaulted, the Bank demanded the vehicle and sued. The circuit court ordered the vehicle delivered to the Bank, entered judgment for Patriot Ford against Moore for repairs, storage and interest (USD 4,028.29), and ruled the Bank’s lien prior.

Holding

Affirmed. Under fruehauf-v-huntington-moving-and-storage-1975, the statutory improver’s lien of W. Va. Code 38-11-3 has supplanted the common-law repairman’s and storage liens and is subordinate to a prior perfected security interest. The clause of § 38-11-3 extending the lien to “any other person by whose authority or with whose consent the property was deposited” does not reach a secured party whose recorded security agreement requires its written consent to repairs or storage, when that consent was not obtained (syllabus point 3, as quoted in general-motors-acceptance-corp-v-dc-wrecker-service-2007).

Reasoning

  • Fruehauf controls priority; the same supplanting analysis applies to the common-law storage lien. The court corrected Fruehauf’s syllabus point 4 to cite article 11 of chapter 38 (not article 14).
  • Older cases suggesting that a seller who authorised repairs is bound by the repairer’s lien (Scott v. Mercer Garage, 1921; Commercial Credit Co. v. Oakley, 1927) did not involve an express written-consent clause and do not control after the UCC.

Practical impact

  • Buyers of a vehicle from a repair or storage lienor take behind a recorded title lender unless the lender gave the required consent.
  • Repairers and storage yards that want priority need the lender’s written consent where the security agreement requires it.
  • Lenders can rely on standard “no repairs or storage without consent” clauses to keep priority.

Good-law status

Still good law as of 2026-10-17: applied in general-motors-acceptance-corp-v-dc-wrecker-service-2007. The current W. Va. Code § 38-11-3 (retrieved 2026-10-16) adds a proviso requiring a repossessing secured party to pay a releasing improver the lesser of actual parts-and-labour cost or USD 1,500 on redemption or resale of a motor vehicle; the opinion notes only a 1981 amendment; general-motors-acceptance-corp-v-dc-wrecker-service-2007 quotes the same USD 1,500 proviso from the 2001 version of § 38-11-3, so it was in force by 2001 (exact enactment session not traced; full 2007 opinion re-read 2026-10-18).

Applies in →

west-virginia · towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales · ucc-article-9-dispositions · motor-vehicles

Graph View

Backlinks