BMI Federal Credit Union v. Charlton (2017)
Decided November 30, 2017; No. 16AP-390. Complete official nine-page opinion retrieved 2026-10-17.
Facts
BMI perfected its vehicle security interest by title notation in January 2013. The repair shop obtained possession and its repair lien about a year later. The dispute concerned the lender’s right to possession versus the shop’s repair/storage claim (¶¶2–8).
Holding and reasoning
The earlier title-noted lender prevailed; summary judgment was affirmed (¶¶17–18). R.C. 1333.41(E) excludes motor vehicles from the statutory bailee lien, leaving the claimed vehicle artisan lien at common law (¶11). The special title-priority provision in R.C. 4505.13 controls over general possessory-lien priority in 1309.333 (¶¶12–15). Replacing former 1309.29 with 1309.333 did not displace Commonwealth Loan Co. v. Berry; the court expressly agreed with leesburg-federal-savings-v-mcmurray-oh-2012.
Practical limits and current fit
The separate unclaimed-vehicle procedure in R.C. 4505.101 is mentioned at ¶16, not held unavailable in every case. This priority action did not itself authorize a general garage auction or determine every auction buyer’s title. Current 4505.13, 1309.333 and 1333.41 preserve the relevant statutory distinction; the particular chronology and title notation matter.
Later treatment
The opinion supplies actual positive treatment of Berry and Leesburg. Focused public review did not establish comprehensive appellate history or later merits treatment of BMI itself; those remain needs_verification. No automatic good-law certification is made.
Applies in →
ohio · motor-vehicles · towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Read the full opinion and current law; later authority may limit this decision.