Corbin Deposit Bank v. King (Ky. 1964)

Corbin Deposit Bank v. King (1964)

Citation: 384 S.W.2d 302 · Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky (Davis, Commissioner), at the time Kentucky’s court of last resort · Decided: November 20, 1964 · Text read from the Caselaw Access Project copy (case.law).

Source note (2026-10-18):

• Links on this page to https://static.case.law/sw2d/384/cases/0302-01.json, https://static.case.law/sw2d/793/cases/0849-01.json, https://static.case.law/sw2d/858/cases/0211-01.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

Floyd Foreman gave Corbin Deposit Bank a security interest in his motor vehicle, perfected by filing in 1961. King Brothers Garage then repaired the vehicle and was not paid. The bank obtained the vehicle by legal process (the sheriff removed it from the garage under court order) and sold it under the UCC (then KRS 355.9-504). The question was who had first right to the proceeds.

Holding

Affirmed for the garage. Under KRS 355.9-310 (now KRS 355.9-333), a possessory lien for services or materials furnished in the ordinary course “takes priority over a perfected security interest unless the lien is statutory and the statute expressly provides otherwise.” “KRS 376.270 contains no provision which may be said to subordinate its statutory lien to an earlier security interest,” so the bank’s lien “yields to the statutory mechanic’s lien of KRS 376.270.” The court rejected pre-Code cases giving priority to recorded chattel mortgages. It held that KRS 376.450, which subordinates the equipment-and-machinery lien of KRS 376.440 to a “mortgage,” does not reach UCC security interests. It also rejected impairment-of-contract and due-process arguments.

Practical impact

• Possession matters: this decision involved a repairer that retained the vehicle until the sheriff removed it by court order. It does not establish priority for every recorded or never-possessory repair lien, or decide the entire buyer-title effect of a later private sale. See itt-commercial-finance-v-madisonville-recapping-1990, 793 S.W.2d 849, 851–52 (Ky. App. 1990), which distinguishes this case and requires possession for former KRS 355.9-310 priority.
• Covered charges matter: central-trust-v-dans-marina-1993 applies the rule to a marina that possessed a boat, allowing repair, preservation-related towing and storage, but excluding service charges from the superior lien. Current KRS 355.9-333 defines the qualifying possessory lien and retains the express-statutory-subordination exception: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=33786 .
• Contrast: tow and storage liens under KRS 376.275 are expressly “subject to prior recorded liens” unless released. That is exactly the “statute expressly provides otherwise” exception.

Good-law status

Full opinion and disposition re-read from the linked CAP original JSON on 2026-10-17. Targeted treatment includes ITT’s express possession distinction and Central Trust’s application and charge limitation; their full opinions were retrieved. Former 9-310 is now KRS 355.9-333. This verifies the holding and identified treatment, not a comprehensive still-good-law certificate or a finding that every state/federal lien issue is resolved.

Treatment primary URLs: https://static.case.law/sw2d/793/cases/0849-01.json and https://static.case.law/sw2d/858/cases/0211-01.json .

Applies in →

kentucky · towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales · ucc-article-9-dispositions

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