Larkin v. Wood (In Re Wood) Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An attorney took an assignment of another attorney’s accounts (contingency fees) as security for a personal loan. The court held the security interest was perfected without a UCC filing because the assignment qualified as a “casual and isolated transaction” exempt from filing requirements.
Legal Significance: Clarifies that the U.C.C. § 9-302(1)(e) “casual and isolated transaction” exemption for perfecting a security interest in accounts depends on the assignee’s regular business practices, not their professional status or general legal knowledge.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Edwin Larkin, an attorney, loaned $10,000 to defendant Robert Wood, another attorney with whom he had a long-standing personal and professional relationship. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note. Five years later, with the loan still unpaid, Wood executed a letter agreement assigning to Larkin the proceeds from two contingency fee litigations as security for the debt. The assignment agreement restricted Larkin’s ability to disclose the assignment or participate in the underlying litigation. Larkin did not file a U.C.C. financing statement to perfect his security interest. Subsequently, Wood filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and, as debtor-in-possession, sought to avoid Larkin’s security interest, arguing it was unperfected due to the lack of filing. The Bankruptcy Court agreed, finding the transaction did not qualify for the filing exemption under U.C.C. § 9-302(1)(e). It reasoned that Larkin failed both the “percentage test” and the “casual and isolated transaction test,” the latter because his status as an attorney imputed a familiarity with perfection requirements. Larkin appealed to the District Court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an assignee’s status as an attorney automatically disqualify a transaction from being considered “casual and isolated” for the purpose of the U.C.C. § 9-302(1)(e) filing exemption for an assignment of accounts?
Reversed. Larkin’s security interest was perfected. An assignee’s professional status as an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat n
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does an assignee’s status as an attorney automatically disqualify a transaction from being considered “casual and isolated” for the purpose of the U.C.C. § 9-302(1)(e) filing exemption for an assignment of accounts?
Conclusion
This case provides a key interpretation of the U.C.C. § 9-302(1)(e) filing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex
Legal Rule
Under U.C.C. § 9-302(1)(e), a security interest in an assignment of accounts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
Legal Analysis
The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's use of a two-pronged standard Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim v
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An assignment of accounts is exempt from UCC filing if it