BankAmerica Housing Services v. P.D.N. & Associates, Inc. (1999)

Citation: 159 Or App 264, 977 P2d 396 · Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon (De Muniz, P.J., Haselton and Linder, JJ.; opinion by Linder, J.) · Decided: March 17, 1999 (argued January 5, 1999) · Appeal from: Grant County Circuit Court (No. 9609247CV; CA A102183)

Facts

BankAmerica financed tenants’ purchase of a manufactured home and held a security interest noted on the home’s Oregon certificate of title. The tenants removed the tongue and wheels, set the home on a foundation, knocked out a wall of the landlord’s existing structure and joined the two, then defaulted to both the lender and the landlord. Having foreclosed its security interest, BankAmerica sued in replevin. The landlord argued the home had become a fixture of its realty and that removal would damage the building; the trial court agreed.

Holding

Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for the lender. A titled manufactured structure did not lose its character as personal property; the fixture-filing provisions of Article 9 did not apply, so the title-noted security interest controlled and the lender was entitled to replevy the home.

Reasoning

Following General Electric Credit Corp. v. Nordmark, 68 Or App 541 (1984), the court held that because manufactured structures fall under the vehicle certificate-of-title system (perfection only by title notation, ORS 803.097; former ORS 79.3020(3)), the fixture rules of former ORS 79.3130 and 79.4010 are inapplicable. The court noted that even under fixture rules, damage from removal would not necessarily bar replevin (former ORS 79.3130(8)).

Practical impact

Under the certificate-of-title and Article 9 statutes applicable to these facts, the landlord’s fixture theory did not defeat the lender. The decision is historical authority; it does not establish today’s ownership-document or lien-perfection system for every manufactured dwelling. Current execution procedure separately treats manufactured dwellings under ORS 18.986, including its dealer-inventory exception. [Current execution text retrieved 2026-10-17: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors018.html]

Good-law status

needs_verification. Full opinion independently retrieved 2026-10-17. It applied former Article 9 and the manufactured-structure title system then in force. Comprehensive later treatment and the effect of later ownership-document legislation remain unverified.

One actual later citation was checked in the complete opinion in mckinley-v-dmv-2002, 179 Or App 350, 356–357 (2002), which relied on this case’s description of the then-applicable title-perfection rule. That verifies a historical application, not the continued operation of that rule under today’s statutes.

Applies in →

oregon · Topics: ucc-article-9-dispositions, motor-vehicles

Legal information, not legal advice. Verify current law and subsequent treatment before relying on this decision.