  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
matter what the underlying state collection law says about the timing of the lien.
Timing is important in other contexts as well. For example the calculation of the time at which a tax debt is due is the date on which penalties begin to accrue, not the date on which the return is due. United States v. Pullman Constr. Indus., Inc., 210 B.R. 302 (N.D. Ill. 1997). In Siemers v. AG Services of America, Inc. (In re Siemers), 249 B.R. 205 (Bankr. D. Neb. 2000), Judge Minahan held that a transfer of security interest in debtors' crops was perfected when debtors planted the crops.
For purposes of section 547(b) transfer by check takes place at the time the check is honored because "receipt of a check gives the recipient no right in the funds held by the bank on the drawer's account. Myriad events can intervene between delivery and presentment of the check that would result in the check being dishonored. The drawer could choose to close the account. A third party could obtain a lien against the account by garnishment or other proceedings. The bank might mistakenly refuse to honor the check." Barnhill, 503 U.S. at 399, 112 S. Ct. at 1390, 118 L. Ed. 2d at 46-47; see also Ebert Bailey Directional Servs. (In re Gibraltar Res., Inc.), 202 B.R. 586 (N.D. Tex. 1996).
Applying the Barnhill test, the Ninth Circuit B.A.P. held in Hall-Mark Electronics Corp. v. Sims (In re Lee), 179 B.R. 149 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995), that a transfer of a cashier's check takes place at the time of delivery because the debtor could not place a stop payment order on the cashier's check. For other purposes within section 547 the crucial date with regard to a check may be different. For example, in determining whether a debt is unpaid at the time of providing new value for the purpose of the "subsequent new value" defense of section 547(c)(4), some courts have determined that the date of the delivery of the check is the relevant date, not the date the check clears.
