1. Upon the receipt of a certified request of an agricultural supply dealer, prior to or upon a sale on a credit basis of an agricultural supply to a farmer, a financial institution which has either a security interest in collateral owned by the farmer or an outstanding loan to the farmer for an agricultural purpose shall issue within four business days a memorandum which states whether or not the farmer has a sufficient net worth or line of credit to assure payment of the purchase price on the terms of the sale. The certified request submitted by the agricultural supply dealer shall state the amount of the purchase and the terms of sale and shall be accompanied by a waiver of confidentiality signed by the farmer, and a fifteen dollar fee. The waiver of confidentiality and the certified request may be combined and submitted as one document. If the financial institution states in its memorandum that the farmer has a sufficient net worth or line of credit to assure payment of the purchase price, the memorandum is an irrevocable and unconditional letter of credit to the benefit of the agricultural supply dealer for a period of thirty days following the date on which the final payment is due for the amount of the purchase price which remains unpaid. If the financial institution does not state in its memorandum that the farmer has a sufficient net worth or line of credit to assure payment of the purchase price, the financial institution shall transmit the relevant financial history which it holds on the person. This financial history shall remain confidential between the financial institution, the agricultural supply dealer, and the farmer.
2. If within four business days of receipt of a certified request a financial institution fails to issue a memorandum upon the request of an agricultural supply dealer and the request from the agricultural supply dealer was proper under subsection 1, or if the memorandum from the financial institution is incomplete, or if the memorandum from the financial institution states that the farmer does not have a sufficient net worth or line of credit to assure payment of the purchase price, the agricultural supply dealer may decide to make the sale and secure the lien provided in section 570A.3.
3. Upon an action to enforce a lien secured under section 570A.3 against the interest of a financial institution secured to the same collateral as that of the lien, it shall be an affirmative defense to a financial institution and complete proof of the superior priority of the financial institution’s lien that the financial institution either did not receive a certified request and a waiver signed by the farmer, or received the request and a waiver signed by the farmer and provided the full and complete relevant financial history which it held on the farmer making the purchase from the agricultural supply dealer on which the lien is based and that financial history reasonably indicated that the farmer did not have a sufficient net worth or line of credit to assure payment of the purchase price. 84 Acts, ch 1072, §2; 85 Acts, ch 204, §2; 90 Acts, ch 1168, §58; 2003 Acts, ch 82, §3 Referred to in §570A.5 \n
Notes of Decisions
Oyens Feed & Supply, Inc. v. Primebank, 808 N.W.2d 186 (Iowa 2011).
· cites it 52× “5(3) (2009) to the extent of the enhanced value of the livestock presumptively attributable to the feed — even though the bank received no certified request under section 570A.2 before the feed was sold on credit.”
Farmers Coop. Co. v. Ernst & Young Inc. (In re Petition of Big Sky Farms Inc.), 512 B.R. 212 (Bankr. D. Iowa 2014).
· cites it 28× “In Oyens Feed, the Iowa Supreme Court answered the certified question of whether an agricultural lien was valid and *218 perfected even though a certified request had not been sent to the primary lender as required by Iowa Code § 570A.2. Id. at 187. Oyens Feed dealt with…”
Wilkin Elevator v. Bennett State Bank, 522 N.W.2d 57 (Iowa 1994).
· cites it 2× “…against the bank, however, because of the feed store's failure to provide the bank with the required documentation. Iowa Code § 570A.2(3) (1991).”
— Iowa Code § 570A.2(1) — 4 cases
Oyens Feed & Supply, Inc. v. Primebank, 808 N.W.2d 186 (Iowa 2011).
“5(3) (2009) to the extent of the enhanced value of the livestock presumptively attributable to the feed — even though the bank received no certified request under section 570A.2 before the feed was sold on credit.”
Farmers Coop. Co. v. Ernst & Young Inc. (In re Petition of Big Sky Farms Inc.), 512 B.R. 212 (Bankr. D. Iowa 2014).
“In Oyens Feed, the Iowa Supreme Court answered the certified question of whether an agricultural lien was valid and *218 perfected even though a certified request had not been sent to the primary lender as required by Iowa Code § 570A.2. Id. at 187. Oyens Feed dealt with…”
— Iowa Code § 570A.2(2) — 4 cases
Oyens Feed & Supply, Inc. v. Primebank, 808 N.W.2d 186 (Iowa 2011).
“5(3) (2009) to the extent of the enhanced value of the livestock presumptively attributable to the feed — even though the bank received no certified request under section 570A.2 before the feed was sold on credit.”
Farmers Coop. Co. v. Ernst & Young Inc. (In re Petition of Big Sky Farms Inc.), 512 B.R. 212 (Bankr. D. Iowa 2014).
“In Oyens Feed, the Iowa Supreme Court answered the certified question of whether an agricultural lien was valid and *218 perfected even though a certified request had not been sent to the primary lender as required by Iowa Code § 570A.2. Id. at 187. Oyens Feed dealt with…”
— Iowa Code § 570A.2(3) — 5 cases
Oyens Feed & Supply, Inc. v. Primebank, 808 N.W.2d 186 (Iowa 2011).
“5(3) (2009) to the extent of the enhanced value of the livestock presumptively attributable to the feed — even though the bank received no certified request under section 570A.2 before the feed was sold on credit.”
Farmers Coop. Co. v. Ernst & Young Inc. (In re Petition of Big Sky Farms Inc.), 512 B.R. 212 (Bankr. D. Iowa 2014).
“In Oyens Feed, the Iowa Supreme Court answered the certified question of whether an agricultural lien was valid and *218 perfected even though a certified request had not been sent to the primary lender as required by Iowa Code § 570A.2. Id. at 187. Oyens Feed dealt with…”
Wilkin Elevator v. Bennett State Bank, 522 N.W.2d 57 (Iowa 1994).
“…against the bank, however, because of the feed store's failure to provide the bank with the required documentation. Iowa Code § 570A.2(3) (1991).”
— Iowa Code § 570A.2(S) — 1 case
Farmers Coop. Co. v. Ernst & Young Inc. (In re Petition of Big Sky Farms Inc.), 512 B.R. 212 (Bankr. D. Iowa 2014).
“In Oyens Feed, the Iowa Supreme Court answered the certified question of whether an agricultural lien was valid and *218 perfected even though a certified request had not been sent to the primary lender as required by Iowa Code § 570A.2. Id. at 187. Oyens Feed dealt with…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.