USA Foreclosure Wiki

BTC Leasing, Inc. v. Martin (Ky. Ct. App. 1984)

3 min read

BTC Leasing, Inc. v. Martin (1984)

Citation: 685 S.W.2d 191 · Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky (McDonald, J.; all concur) · Decided: April 20, 1984; modified on rehearing August 24, 1984; discretionary review denied March 13, 1985. Full opinion, including rehearing metadata and statutory-change footnote, re-read from the Caselaw Access Project original JSON on 2026-10-17.

Source note (2026-10-18):

  • Links on this page to https://static.case.law/sw2d/685/cases/0191-01.json are an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.

Facts

Billy Martin remodeled a 60-foot houseboat docked in Wayne County and was not paid. He filed a lien statement with the Wayne County clerk, citing KRS 376.270 and 376.360. He never had possession of the boat. While his enforcement suit was pending, the boat passed to the owner’s ex-wife, who moved it to Russell County and sold it for USD 27,000 to BTC Leasing. BTC searched the clerk’s records in Russell County (where the boat was moored) and Pulaski County (where it was registered) and found nothing. Martin obtained a default judgment against the former owner and then sought a commissioner’s sale of the boat in BTC’s hands.

Holding

Reversed. BTC was a bona fide purchaser.

  1. KRS 376.270 did not then cover boats. It was limited to “motor vehicles,” a term that KRS 376.281 extended to aircraft but not to watercraft.
  2. KRS 376.360 (steamboats, brigs, schooners, sloops, model barges) did not cover a pleasure houseboat. Its one-year/enrollment rule in KRS 376.390(2) presupposes a commercial, enrolled vessel.
  3. The applicable statute was KRS 376.280 (sale of a “boat” for repair charges), which requires that the boat remain “in the possession of” the repairer. Martin never had possession.
  4. No constructive notice. BTC could not be charged with a lien recorded in a third county with which the boat had no apparent connection.
  5. No res judicata. BTC was not in privity with the former owner, who had divested himself before the default judgment.
  6. Cross-motions did not bar the appeal. BTC’s own request for summary judgment did not prevent review of the legal validity of Martin’s asserted lien. The court distinguished a complaint about factual issues from a challenge to the legal result on the summary-judgment record.

Practical impact

  • Buyers of Kentucky boats: search the clerk’s records where the boat is kept and where it is registered. A lien recorded in an unrelated county was not binding on a good-faith buyer here.
  • Statutory change: a 1984 act (now KRS 376.268(2)) defines “motor vehicle” for KRS 376.270 and 376.275 to include vessels. Holding 1 is superseded for boats repaired after July 1984. The possession requirement and notice reasoning must still be applied to the actual governing statute and current title/federal rules. The opinion’s footnote gives July 2, 1984 as the amendment’s effective date. Current definition text and history were separately retrieved: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=44041 . See kentucky module 12.3.

Good-law status

Superseded in part by the vessel-definition enactment that the opinion itself discusses; the old exclusion of vessels from 376.270 is not current law. central-trust-v-dans-marina-1993 later applies the amended definition to a possessory boat repair/storage lien. That is statutory and identified case treatment, not a comprehensive citator certification of every BTC holding.

Applies in →

kentucky · marina-and-storage-lien-sales-of-vessels · vessels

Legal information, not legal advice. Verify the cited primary sources and current law before acting.

Graph View

Backlinks