Karle v. Visser

SCHROEDER, Chief Justice.

This case involves an appeal from a district court decision that Arthur M. Bistline (Bistline) did not have a valid security interest in a pending action to collect on a promissory note.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 9, 1994, Doug and Vicki Visser (the Vissers) entered into an agreement to sell them dismantling and auto salvage business to Charles and Valerie Karle (the Karles) for the sum of $85,000.00. The overall transaction involved several different agreements, including both an Asset Transfer Agreement (ATA) and rental agreement to lease five acres of…