Leesburg Federal Savings Bank v. McMurray (2012)
Decided November 26, 2012; Fayette County No. CA2012-02-002. Complete official eight-page opinion retrieved 2026-10-17.
Facts and holding
The lender and a business holding a vehicle disputed priority and storage compensation. Merely storing the vehicle in a heated facility did not create an artisan lien (¶¶11–13). Later repair work did create a lien, but after the lender’s perfected title interest, so it was subordinate (¶14). The lender’s lack of knowledge of the alleged storage benefit defeated the asserted quantum-meruit claim (¶¶15–18).
Reasoning and practical impact
An artisan lien requires the relevant work on the chattel; storage possession alone does not create it. At ¶9 and footnote 3, the court applied Commonwealth Loan Co. v. Berry’s special motor-vehicle title priority despite replacement of former R.C. 1309.29 by 1309.333. This does not establish general authority to sell the vehicle without a court or clear a lender through an ordinary garage sale.
Current R.C. 4505.13, 1309.333 and 1333.41(E) are the relevant title/UCC/bailee provisions.
Later treatment
bmi-federal-credit-union-v-charlton-oh-2017, ¶15, expressly follows the priority analysis and footnote 3. That is actual later treatment on that proposition. Marreez v. Jim Collins Auto Body, Inc., 2021-Ohio-4075, ¶9, later cites Leesburg for motor-vehicle artisan liens remaining common law; its consumer-estimate holding does not decide lender priority. Comprehensive appellate history and additional later merits treatment remain needs_verification; the metadata is not a blanket good-law determination.
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.