IN RE REEL

PETER McNIFF, Bankruptcy Judge

On April 7, 2005, the Plaintiff/Trustee's Complaint to Determine Extent of Lien came before the court for a hearing on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. The parties agree there is no disputed issue of material fact and summary judgment is appropriate as a matter of law.

Jurisdiction

The court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. This is a core proceeding within the definition of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K). The motions are brought under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, made applicable in adversary proceedings by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7056.

Findings of Fact

The Debtor, Laurie Reel, filed her voluntary chapter 7 petition in this court on September 15, 2003. At the time of filing, the Debtor lived in Powell, Wyoming. The plaintiff, Randy Royal, is the trustee of the estate.

On May 13, 2003, the Debtor executed a Consumer Credit Sales Agreement, Security Agreement and Disclosure Statement to finance the purchase of a used 1997 Sundowner 7-horse trailer (Trailer) from Nichols RV World (Nichols), located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The contract was assigned by Nichols to the defendant, Bank of America (BofA). At the time, the Debtor resided in Owasso, Oklahoma.

Nichols had previously acquired the Trailer from Cache Performance Horses LLC (Cache) located in Colorado. The trailer was a titled vehicle in Colorado, and Cache was listed as the owner on the Colorado title. In October 2002, Cache assigned the title to Nichols. On May 15, 2003, Nichols, as a dealer, reassigned the Colorado title to the Debtor. No title listing the Debtor as the owner of the trailer exists, and Nichols did not provide the Colorado title to the Debtor.

On June 10, 2003, BofA filed a UCC financing statement with the county clerk of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. On January 5, 2004, BofA repossessed the trailer in Louisiana. This action followed.

Conclusions of Law

The Plaintiff contends BofA does not have a perfected security interest in the trailer because BofA's lien is not recorded on a Colorado or Oklahoma title. Presumably, he seeks to avoid the lien through 11 U.S.C. § 544(a).

Both Colorado and Oklahoma have enacted Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 4-9-101 through 4-9-710 (2004); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12A, §§ 1-9-101 through 1-9-710 (West 2001). Article 9 applies to a transaction that creates a security interest in personal property. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-109(1) (2004); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12A, § 1-9-109(1) (West 2001).

Under § 9-301(1) of the UCC, "while a debtor is located in a jurisdiction, the local law of that jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in collateral." An individual debtor's location is the individual's principal residence. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-307(b)(1)(2004); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12A, § 1-9-307(b)(1) (West 2001). Because the Debtor purchased the trailer in Oklahoma and resided in Oklahoma at the time, Oklahoma law is applicable to the transaction.

Under Oklahoma's Vehicle License and Registration Act, the owner of every vehicle in the state must possess a certificate of title. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 47, § 1105B (Thompson West 2005). To perfect a security interest, a lien must be recorded on the certificate of title to the vehicle. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 47, § 1110A (Thompson West 2005). However, under Oklahoma law, a vehicle does not include trailers, except travel trailers and rental trailers. Consequently, the horse Trailer in this case is not a titled vehicle in Oklahoma.

To perfect the security interest in the Trailer, BofA was required to perfect in accordance with the UCC, specifically Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12A, §§ 1-9-310(a) 1-9-501(a)(2) which require filing in the office of the county clerk of Oklahoma County. BofA properly filed its financing statement on June 10, 2003, and has a perfected security interest in the trailer under Oklahoma law.

However, the Plaintiff argues that the provisions of Article 9 found in § 9-303 of both states' statutes control. That section provides:

Law governing perfection and priority of security interests in goods covered by a certificate of title.

(a) This section applies to goods covered by a certificate of title, even if there is no other relationship between the jurisdiction under whose certificate of title the goods are covered and the goods of the debtor.

(b) Goods become covered by a certificate of title when a valid application for the certificate of title and the applicable fee are delivered to the appropriate authority. Goods cease to be covered by a certificate of title at the earlier of the time the certificate of title ceases to be effective under the law of the issuing jurisdiction or the time the goods become covered subsequently by a certificate of title issued by another jurisdiction.

(c) The local law of the jurisdiction under whose certificate of title the goods are covered governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in goods covered by a certificate of title from the time the goods become covered by the certificate of title until the goods cease to be covered by the certificate of title.

The plaintiff contends the Trailer is goods covered by a certificate of title under § 9-303(a) because a Colorado certificate of title was issued in Colorado; that under § 9-303(c), Colorado law governs perfection of BofA's security interest; and therefore, BofA was required to perfect its lien by notation on a Colorado or Oklahoma certificate of title.

The court believes the plaintiff misreads § 9-303. Under Oklahoma law, the Trailer is not goods covered by a certificate of title. The Colorado title ceased to be effective pursuant to § 9-303(b) when the Trailer was sold to the Oklahoma dealer and was moved to Oklahoma. Colorado does not require registration and a certificate of title for a motor vehicle or owner not located in Colorado, and Colorado's certificate-of-title law does not govern the transaction.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, BofA has a valid, perfected security interest in the Trailer. The court will issue a summary judgment in favor of BofA on the complaint.