  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
Hardware Co. v. Sherwin Williams Co. (In re Spirit Holding Co.), 153 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 1998).
In Tomlins v. BRW Paper Co. (In re Tulsa Litho Co.), 229 B.R. 806 (B.A.P. 10th Cir: 1999), the B.A.P. held that payment by cashier's check alone is not sufficient to defeat the ordinary course of business exception. Moreover, the Court approved the use of the defense in a transaction out of terms which was the first transaction between the parties where the payment was consistent with payments from a vendor that acquired the creditor prior to the transfer. To the extent payments were more than ten percent beyond the previous latest payment they are disqualified from taking advantage of the ordinary course of business defense. H. L. Hansen Lumber Co. of Galesbury, Inc. v. G&H Custom Craft, Inc.(In re H.L. Hansen Lumber Co. of Galesburg, Inc., 270 B.R. 273 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2001).
Testimony that creditor had made calls to debtor regarding payment did not amount to such a collection tactic or change in collection tactic as to take the payment out of the ordinary course of business. Berger Indus. Inc. v. Artmark Prods. Co. (In re Berger Indus., 260 B.R. 639 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2001). Collection tactics in combination with other factors took the payment out of the ordinary course of business. In re TennOhio Transp. Co., 269 B.R. 775 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2001). To prove that the payments were outside the ordinary course of business the trustee sought to show that the were made in response to increased collection pressure and presented evidence that the creditor had made collection calls to Debtor concerning payment related to five out of seven orders. The defendant showed that a pattern of such calls had occurred throughout the history of the relationship and the Court held that "the record establishes that the parties had a 3-year business history before the preference period, during which calls to aid in collection of about 107 invoices (fluctuated). The record shows nothing unusual about the course of business between the parties in the preference period as compare with the prior three years. Bros. Gourmet Coffees, Inc. v. Armenia Coffee Corp. (In re Brothers Gourmet Coffees, Inc)., 271 B.R. 456 (Bankr. D. Del. 2002).
Because Creditor had given an effective lien wavier in return for a NSF check, the delivery of a substitute
