text:
No. 88,019
GUARANTY STATE BANK & TRUST CO. and the
1. K.S.A. 84-9-312 is a "pure race" statute, and a secured party first in time to perfect its security interest has priority over any prior unperfected security interest.
2. A purchase money security interest is an exception to the "pure race" nature of Kansas law on secured transactions. If a purchase money creditor follows the requirements of K.S.A. 84-9-312(3), its interest, even if perfected later in time, takes priority over an earlier perfected security interest in the same collateral.
3. In order for a purchase money security interest to gain priority over an earlier perfected security interest, the purchase money lender must jump through four hoops: (1) The purchase money security interest must be perfected (normally by an executed security agreement and filing) by the time the debtor receives possession of the inventory, and not one second later; (2) the supplier or third-party purchase money lender must give notification in writing to any competing security interest which has been previously filed; (3) the holder of the competing interest must receive the written notification within the 5 year period before the debtor receives possession of the inventory (i.e., the purchase money creditor must renew the notification every 5 years); and (4) the notification must state that the purchase money creditor has or expects to acquire a purchase money security interest in inventory of the debtor, describing such inventory by item or type.
4. Strict compliance with the requirements of K.S.A. 84-9-312(3) is required.
Appeal from Lincoln District Court; THOMAS M. TUGGLE, judge. Opinion filed September 27, 2002. Affirmed.
George P. Coughlin and Patrick J. Kaine, of Dysart Taylor Lay Cotter & McMonigle, P.C., of Kansas City, and Lance H. Cochran, of Kennedy Berkley Yarnevich & Williamson, Chartered, of Salina, for appellants.
Guy R. Steier, of Frasier & Steier, of Beloit, for appellees.
Before GERNON, MARQUARDT and BEIER, JJ.
BEIER, J.: Defendant Van Diest Supply Company (Van Diest) appeals summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs Guaranty State Bank & Trust Co. (GSB) and the North Central Regional Planning Commission ( the Commission) in their conversion action. We must decide whether Van Diest acquired a purchase money security interest that takes priority over the security interests of GSB and the Commission.
Both GSB and the Commission made loans to debtor Barnard Grain Company (Barnard). On May 24, 1994, GSB filed a financing statement with the Kansas Secretary of State, perfecting a security interest in certain collateral, including all of Barnard's inventory now and hereafter owned. GSB filed a continuation statement on March 17, 1999. On June 28, 1995, the Commission filed a financing statement perfecting a security interest in the same collateral. It filed a continuation statement on June 29, 1995.
Barnard eventually got behind in its payments to Van Diest for agricultural chemicals purchased in 1997. On January 20, 1998, Brad Hickenbottom, Van Diest's credit manager, met with Barnard's president, Tom King, and GSB loan officer Myron Wolken for the purpose of obtaining two things: payment of the outstanding balance due to Van Diest and King's signature on documents establishing Van Diest's purchase money security interest (PMSI) in any agricultural chemicals to be sold to Barnard in the future. King had talked to Wolken before the meeting to ensure funds were available from GSB to pay Van Diest.
King signed the documents prior to Wolken's arrival at the meeting. Testimony was conflicting on whether Wolken reviewed and approved the security documents after he arrived. Hickenbottom testified that Wolken did review the documents a business security agreement, a guaranty, and a financing statement and that the two of them discussed the documents and Barnard's financial condition. Wolken testified that he knew Barnard and Van Diest were doing business, but that he neither reviewed nor was asked to review the documents. King testified that the conversation between Hickenbottom and Wolken was essentially an introduction and an exchange of pleasantries; he did not recall Wolken being asked to review any documents.
The Van Diest security agreement and its financing statement, filed January 26, 1998, covered
"[a]ll of debtor's property (including without limitation all inventory of agricultural chemicals and additives thereto) purchased or otherwise acquired from Secured Party; all cash and non-cash proceeds arising from or received upon the sale, exchange, or other disposition of such inventory or other property or of the proceeds thereof (including without limitation insurance proceeds payable by reason of loss or damage and returned or repossessed goods), whether such inventory, property or proceeds are now or hereafter acquired, existing or arising and wherever they may be located; and all substitutions therefore and additions and accessions thereto."
Neither the security agreement nor the financing statement contained the phrase "purchase money security interest."
Van Diest resumed selling agricultural chemicals to Barnard. As of November 22, 1999, the balance due was $31,872.14.
In December 1999, the board of directors of Barnard decided to start selling off its assets, and Van Diest deemed itself insecure as a result of conversations with King and Wolken. From February 22 to February 29, 2000, Van Diest removed approximately 536.5 gallons of chemicals, valued at $44,636.80, from the Barnard facility. Barnard knew about the removal and neither objected nor consented. Because Van Diest removed more chemical than it needed to cover Barnard's debt, Van Diest later sent a refund check to Barnard.
The Commission filed a release of its security interest on June 15, 2000. Three days later, GSB filed this action, alleging Van Diest committed a conversion when it removed the chemicals from Barnard's facility. It later moved to join the Commission as an additional plaintiff because the Commission had also held an allegedly prior security interest in Barnard's inventory. The district court granted the motion over Van Diest's objections.
Van Diest filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it had a PMSI that took priority over GSB's security interest. GSB and the Commission then filed an amended petition, jointly claiming their security interests were prior to Van Diest's. The amended petition specifically referred to the Commission's perfected security interest as evidenced by the June 29, 1995, financing statement; it did not reveal that the Commission had released its security interest the previous summer.
In its answer to the amended petition, Van Diest asserted plaintiffs' claims were barred by the doctrine of waiver; the Commission was not a legal entity and lacked standing to sue; plaintiffs' claims were inconsistent and in conflict with each other; and plaintiffs' counsel had a conflict of interest that precluded ethical representation of both plaintiffs.
Van Diest filed a motion to dismiss the Commission. The district court denied the motion, finding:
"2. Kansas has adopted the rule that the statutory authority to sue or to be sued need not be express, but can be implied. Board of Library Directors v. City of Fort Scott, 134 Kan. 586, 7 P.2d 533 (1932) held that the board of directors of the Fort Scott public library had standing to maintain an action in ejectment against the city of Fort Scott claiming title and possession to certain real estate. The court stated:
'The statute does not in express terms say that the board may sue and be sued. We do not think it is necessary that express power be given by the statute to authorize an administrative board to maintain an action in court where such board has the power to own and control property. (Board of Park Commissioners v. Nashville, 134 Tenn. 612.) The power to own and control property is nugatory unless the party vested with such power may call upon the courts to protect it in the ownership and use of such property. The board is a creature of the law - a legal entity - on which the statute confers powers and faculties which are of no force or effect unless it may vindicate the rights conferred in the courts.'
The rule in City of Fort Scott was repeated in dicta in Lindenman v. Unscheid, 255 Kan. 610, 628-29, 875 P.2d 964 (1994). See also, NEA - Coffeyville v. U.S.D. No. 445, 268 Kan. 384, 996 P.2d 821 (2000).
"3. Because plaintiff has the authority to own property it follows that it has standing to protect and recover its property."
GSB and the Commission filed a joint motion for summary judgment, arguing Van Diest did not have a PMSI because it failed to provide written notification to either the Commission or GSB as required by K.S.A. 84-9-312(3)(b). The district court agreed and granted the motion:
"'Notification in writing to the holder of the conflicting security interest' means more than the holder having knowledge of the conflicting security interest, the knowledge must be communicated in a prescribed way, i.e. by written notice being delivered to the holder. See, Wade v. Wade's Adm'r, et al., 81 Vt. 275, 69 Alt. 826 (1908)."
The court held that because Van Diest's security interest was perfected after the perfection of the security interests of GSB and the Commission, Van Diest's removal of the chemicals from the Barnard facility was a conversion. The court entered judgment in favor of GSB and the Commission in the amount of $44,636.80 plus interest and costs.
In this appeal, Van Diest continues to argue that it had acquired a PMSI in the chemicals it ended up removing from Barnard's facility because it properly complied with the notice requirements of K.S.A. 84-9-312(3), giving it priority over GSB. As for the Commission, Van Diest argues three points: (1) The district court's judgment is void because it awards a single amount to GSB and the Commission, who have conflicting claims; (2) the Commission, a voluntary, unincorporated association, was improperly joined as a plaintiff because it did not have the capacity to sue in its own name; and (3) the Commission had released its security interest before summary judgment was granted.
Adequacy of Van Diest's Written Notice to GSB
K.S.A. 84-9-312(3) and (5) provide in relevant part:
"(3) A perfected purchase money security interest in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory and also has priority in identifiable cash proceeds received on or before the delivery of the inventory to a buyer if:
(a) The purchase money security interest is perfected at the time the debtor receives possession of the inventory; and
(b) except where excused by K.S.A. 84-9-319, and amendments thereto, the purchase money secured party gives notification in writing to the holder of the conflicting security interest if the holder had filed a financing statement covering the same types of inventory (i) before the date of the filing made by the purchase money secured party or (ii) before the beginning of the 21-day period where the purchase money security interest is temporarily perfected without filing or possession . . .; and
(c) the holder of the conflicting security interest receives the notification within five years before the debtor receives possession of the inventory; and
(d) the notification states that the person giving the notice has or expects to acquire a purchase money security interest in inventory of the debtor, describing such inventory by item or type.
. . . .
"(5) In all cases not governed by other rules stated in this section (including cases of purchase money security interests which do not qualify for the special priorities set forth in subsections (3) and (4)), priority between conflicting security interests in the same collateral shall be determined according to the following rules:
(a) Conflicting security interests rank according to priority in time of filing or perfection. Priority dates from the time a filing is first made covering the collateral or the time the security interest is first perfected, whichever is earlier, provided that there is no period thereafter when there is neither filing nor perfection."
K.S.A. 84-9-312 is a "pure race" statute, and a secured party first in time to perfect its security interest has priority over any prior unperfected security interest. J.I. Case Credit Corp. v. Foos, 11 Kan. App. 2d 185, Syl ¶ 2, 717 P.2d 1064, rev. denied 239 Kan. 694 (1986). An exception exists, however, for a PMSI. If a purchase money creditor follows the requirements of K.S.A. 84-9-312(3), its interest, even if perfected later in time, takes priority over an earlier perfected security interest in the same collateral.
Van Diest argues it complied with the statutory notice requirement for acquisition of a PMSI during the January 20, 1998, meeting among Hickenbottom, King, and Wolken. Because there is evidence that GSB's representative, Wolken, reviewed and discussed the Van Diest security agreement and financing statement, Van Diest contends, notice of creation of a PMSI was sufficient. According to Van Diest, although the documents did not contain the term "purchase money security interest," they clearly informed GSB that Van Diest expected to "'extend credit and grant other financial accommodations'" to Barnard and that Barnard granted Van Diest a security interest in "'all inventory of agricultural chemicals and additives thereto purchased or otherwise acquired'" from Van Diest. Relying on In re Daniels, 35 Bankr. 247 (W.D. Okla. 1983), Van Diest argues this language was sufficient to alert GSB "that a purchase money transaction [was] at hand."
In Daniels, the court considered whether a letter sent by the purchase money creditor to the financing creditor, stating the purchase money creditor was claiming a "security interest" rather than a "purchase money security interest" in certain inventory, was adequate notice under U.C.C. § 9-312(3)(b) and (d).
The court first noted that the Uniform Commercial Code, of which this section was a part, should be liberally construed to promote the underlying policies and purposes of the code, and the UCC comments indicated the section was designed for the protection of the prior secured creditor. Although the purchase money creditor did not use the term "PMSI" in this case, the court ruled "[t]he use of the terms 'furniture or fixtures now owned or hereafter acquired' and 'boats and motors now owned or hereafter acquired' should be clear indicators to a sophisticated commercial entity that a purchase money transaction is at hand." 35 Bankr. at 251. The court buttressed its conclusion by noting that no creditor other than one acquiring a PMSI is required to forward any notice to a prior secured party. In other words, the mere effort to provide notice was indicative of the classification of the later security interest. Compare In re La Selle's Bicycle World, 120 Bankr. 579 (N.D. Okla. 1990) (finding PMSI with priority over earlier perfected security interest despite failure of notice; county clerk erred in telling PMSI creditor no earlier security interests existed).
Research has revealed no Kansas cases that address whether the notice required under the statute must contain the words "purchase money security interest." However, the Kansas Comment to K.S.A. 84-9-312(3), along with the plain language of the statute, appear to suggest inclusion is necessary:
"This subsection establishes a special priority rule for purchase money security interests in inventory. If the four hoops are jumped through, the purchase money security interest will prevail over a previously filed financing statement covering 'all inventory,' as to the inventory financed by the purchase money secured party. If the hoops are not jumped through, the prior filer will have priority under the 'first to file' rule of subsection (5). . . .
"In order to gain priority under this subsection, the purchase money lender must jump through four hoops: (1) the purchase money security interest must be perfected (normally by an executed security agreement and filing) by the time the debtor receives possession of the inventory, and not one second later; (2) the supplier or third-party purchase money lender must give notification in writing to any competing security interest which has been previously filed; (3) the holder of the competing interest must receive the written notification within the five year period before the debtor receives possession of the inventory (i.e., the purchase money creditor must renew the notification every five years); and (4) the notification must state that the purchase money creditor 'has or expects to acquire a purchase money security interest in inventory of the debtor, describing such inventory by item or type.'" (Emphasis added.)
In addition, several cases from other jurisdictions have required strict compliance with these requirements to grant priority to a PMSI. See e.g. First Nat. Bank of Steeleville, N.A. v. Erb Equipment Co., Inc., 921 S.W.2d 57, 63 (Mo. App. 1996) ("[T]he treatment of purchase money security interests is an exception and as an exception the interest claiming that status must clearly appear to meet the requirements imposed."); In re Superior Equipment, Inc., 195 B.R. 77 (C.D. Ill. 1996) (finding impossibility of compliance not recognized defense for purchase money creditor's failure to give written notice); Steego Auto Parts Corp. v. Markey, 2 Ohio App. 3d 200, 441 N. E. 2d 279 (1981) (no statutory authority permits waiver of notice requirements); Kimbell Foods Inc. v. Republic National Bank of Dallas, 557 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1977) (purchase money creditor lost priority status by failing to provide the prior creditor with written notice, despite prior creditor's vague knowledge of purchase money creditor's loan, expectation of lien acquisition).
We also look to the stated policy behind the statute. The Official UCC Comment provides:
"The reason for the additional requirement of notification is that typically the arrangement between an inventory secured party and his debtor will require the secured party to make periodic advances against incoming inventory or periodic releases of old inventory as new inventory is received. A fraudulent debtor may apply to the secured party for advances even though he has already given a security interest in the inventory to another secured party. The notification requirement protects the inventory financer in such a situation: if he has received notification, he will presumably not make an advance; if he has not received notification (or if the other interest does not qualify as a purchase money interest), any advance he may make will have priority." K.S.A. 84-9-312, Official UCC Comment 3.
It follows that a PMSI creditor should make its intention to claim priority clear to earlier security interest holders. Permitting a PMSI holder to call its interest simply a "security interest" could mislead the earlier holder, leading it to assume it maintained its priority under the "first to file" rule and would be secure in making future advances.
In this case, Van Diest did not provide separate, explicit written notification to GSB of Van Diest's claim to a PMSI in Barnard's inventory. And, even if we accept Van Diest's version of the January 1998 meeting, i.e., that GSB's representative reviewed and discussed Van Diest's security agreement and financing statement, neither document mentioned a PMSI
in Barnard's inventory. To serve the purpose of the notification requirement, we hold that strict compliance with K.S.A. 84-9-312(3) is required to establish a PMSI that will enjoy priority over earlier perfected security interests. Absent the explicit written notice required, GSB's security interest took priority over Van Diest's under K.S.A. 84-9-312(5)(a), and Van Diest's removal of the chemicals from Barnard's facility was a conversion.
Role of the Commission
As stated above, Van Diest raises three issues regarding the Commission's role in this lawsuit. Regardless of whether the Commission was a proper party below, however, the outcome of this appeal would not change.
At the time summary judgment was granted to plaintiffs, Barnard owed GSB approximately $300,000 and owed the Commission $96,000. There was no dispute between GSB and the Commission over which of them held the superior security interest. GSB had perfected its security interest in Barnard's inventory before the Commission perfected its security interest. Thus, under K.S.A. 84-9-312(5)(a), GSB's security interest has priority, and all of the $44,636.80 judgment must be applied to reduce Barnard's outstanding $300,000
debt. No amount will be left over to reduce the debt to the Commission, regardless of whether it was properly or improperly allowed to participate as a party plaintiff.


text:
Legalization 'looking inevitable,' spokesman says
If there's one group of people who get their way in Washington, it's lobbyists.
Now, advocates of marijuana legalization may have a reason to cheer that political reality: They're getting their own marijuana lobby group.
And just Big Pharma and Big Oil lobby for greater leeway for their businesses, so too will Big Marijuana push for their industry to be given the freedom to succeed.
Aaron Smith, executive director of the newly formed National Cannabis Industry Association, says that marijuana legalization is "looking inevitable."
Smith told McClatchy news service: "It's pretty clear that the medical marijuana industry is becoming recognized more and more by the mainstream as a fully legitimate part of the economy."
Legalization "didn't happen in 2010, but it's likely to happen in 2012," he added. "It's going to be relatively soon we're going to see states move from medical marijuana into broader legal markets. And the federal government needs to catch up. Frequently the American people are ahead of the Congress."
Filed under: Censorship, Civil Liberties, DEA, Drugs, Information, Military Industrial Complex, Prison Industrial Complex, Religion Industrial Complex | Tagged: Aaron Smith, Civil Liberties, civil rights, fascism, human rights, marijuana, medical marijuana, National Cannabis Industry Association, Prohibition | 1 Comment »

subset: commoncrawl


text:
While the health effects of breastfeeding get plenty of attention, you're less likely to hear about some of the interactions between breastfeeding and psychological development.
That's why I was so excited to learn about the research of psychologist Dr. Darcia Narvaez at the University of Notre Dame. She is Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Collaborative for Ethical Education. She is co-author, most recently, of Evolution, Early Experience, and Human Development and has written on breastfeeding for Psychology Today.
To learn more about Dr. Narvaez's research on the relationship between breastfeeding and moral development, I asked her these questions:
You say that breastfeeding related to moral development in children. Can you describe what the research says about the attributes which are associated with breastfeeding? Is there a connection between length of breastfeeding and moral development?
Yes, there is a connection. In our studies, breastfeeding initiation is correlated with social cooperation at 18 months, fewer behavior problems at 24 months, and empathy at age three. Breastfeeding length is correlated in 3 year olds with inhibitory control (being able to stop one's behavior), sense of guilt, and concern after doing something wrong.
What can the newer research in neuroscience and gene expression tell us about the relationship between breastfeeding and moral development?
Breastfeeding is known to have specific effects. Breastfeeding at night provides tryptophan which is a precursor for serotonin. Serotonin is a key neurotransmitter related both to general neuronal communication and to not getting depressed. Breastfeeding provides multiple factors that lead to good immune system development which resides primarily in the gut where 90% of the serotonin receptors are.
Breastmilk provides all the immunoglobulin factors for the immune system, which does reach adult levels till age 6. It also contains oligosaccharides, which humans cannot digest, but which feed the good gut bacteria, keeping immunity strong.
Our development is greatly shaped by caregivers and early experience, a part of which is breastfeeding our children and being breastfed. We have not evolved away from being mammals and what mammals need. Our ancestral parenting practices match up with the needs of social mammals and emerged more than 30 million years ago.
What are those ancestral caregiving practices? They include meeting the needs of the young child promptly so the child's brain does not get stressed. They include nearly constant touch in the first years of life to keep DNA synthesis and growth hormone active. They include multiple supportive caregivers of both mom and baby. Extensive breastfeeding is another need that is required for a well-functioning body and brain.
Although research has barely begun to scratch the surface of the contents and benefits of breastmilk, it shows how overwhelmingly important breastmilk is for brain and body development.
To learn about Dr. Narvaez' findings on empathy and breastfeeding, watch this video!


text:
CoreLogic May home price index rose 0.8%
National home prices inched up for the second-straight month in May yet remained 7.4% lower than a year earlier, according to the CoreLogic (CLGX) home price index. The data analytics company said its HPI, which includes short sales and REO transaction, rose 0.8% last month. Excluding sales of distressed properties, home prices decreased 0.4% from the year-ago May. "Two consecutive months of month-over-month growth and continued relative strength in the non-distressed market segment are positive seasonal signs in the housing market," according to Mark Fleming, chief economist at CoreLogic. "Slowly declining shadow inventory and stabilized negative equity levels are also positive signs. Nonetheless, the fragile economic recovery is still critical to the long-term recovery in the housing market," he said. Capital Economics said the CoreLogic data for May provides "further evidence that the five-year long decline in prices may be drawing to a close." "We remain concerned that prices may yet slip a little further," analysts at Toronto-based firm said. "Either way, the chronic lack of demand and still high excess supply suggests a major rebound is not imminent." Home prices rose the most in New York last month with a 4.4% gain, followed by Vermont with a 3.9% increase and North Dakota at 3.8%, according to CoreLogic. Prices fell the most in May in Idaho, dropping 16.4%. Michigan home prices declined nearly 13%, Arizona prices decreased 12.1% and Illinois prices slid 11.8%. Home prices in Nevada last month were 11.6% lower than April prices. CoreLogic said its home price index, including distressed sales, is 32.7% lower than the April 2006 peak. Excluding sales of distressed properties, the index is 21.1% lower since the high of five years ago. Write to Jason Philyaw.


text:
Black Hawks From a Blue Sun by Allen Farnham is the sequel to Angry Ghosts, a book I found on Authonomy ages ago. It was published last year, and I was thrilled to get a copy. Anyone who is motivated enough can find the review from when I first found it on Authonomy here. Also, Angry Ghosts was renamed Wraiths of Earth when it was republished, so if you are just now discovering this very promising series make sure you look for it under the new title.
So anyway, when Allen emailed to let me know the sequel was finally ready (don't you just hate having to wait for the next book!) I jumped on the chance to snag a copy for review.
Black Hawks picks up where Angry Ghosts left off, with a 3 man team from Cadre One dispatched to Earth using information about the planet provided by the colonists. The team of Gun Thompson, Brick Argo, and Geek Beckert, all familiar characters from the first book, carries the hopes of both surviving groups of humans to make a permanent, sustainable home again. Their mission: find out if the alien attackers who wiped out humanity are still there. No suspense on that point, we find out immediately that the blueskins have set up a colony. We follow the team as they explore what is left of their ruined homeworld, which no human has set foot on for nearly 1000 years, and launch a guerrilla assault on the blueskins to reek as much havoc as possible in the short time available to them. In the process we learn that there was also a Cadre Two, and that humans actually started the war with the blueskins.
Black Hawks is fast paced with a lot of action, but Farnham also takes time to explore the reactions of the individual team members as they encounter artifacts from a mostly forgotten past. It is a good, quick read that offers a little meat to ponder while I wait for the next volume.


text:
GRINNELL, Iowa -- Brandeis senior Chris Brown (No. Chelmsford, Mass./Chelmsford) claimed his first career All-America honor today, finishing third in the mile run at the 2012 NCAA Division III Indoor Track and Field championships at Grinnell College.
Brown, who was seeded third entering the meet, ran the fastest time in preliminaries on Friday afternoon, 4:12.57, edging Kevin McCarthy of Wabash (Ind.) by 0.17 seconds. The time was a Grinnell facility record. In Saturday's finals, Brown ran in the pack for much of the race, staying between fifth and seventh place. After McCarthy surged to the lead in the final quarter-mile, Brown tried to catch him with his kick in the final lap. While it wasn't enough to claim the NCAA title, Brown moved into the top three of the podium, finishing with a time of 4:11.24. McCarthy eclipsed Brown's facility record with a winning time of 4:08.93, less than a second off the Division III championship meet record time.
"I'm really proud of [Brown's] performance," said Brandeis head coach John Evans. "He had taken a big step this season and finish third in his first national track championship is a great achievement."
With his third-place finish, Brown had the first All-America performance by a male at the NCAA Division III indoor track and field championships since 2005, when Ryan Parker '06 was runner-up in the 800-meter run. The six points that Brown provided helped Brandeis place in a six-way tie for 27th place out of 60 schools that scored points. The Judges were eighth among New England schools and second among UAA schools, behind Washington U. (T18th, 10 points).
Click here for complete results: http://www.deltatiming.com/events/2012/2012-ncaa-division-3-indoor-championships/
Event 8 Men 1 Mile Run ======================================================================= 2 Heats. Advance top 3 from each heat plus next 4 best times DIII Meet: $ 4:08.19 2007 Will Leer, Pomona-Pitzer Stadium: # 4:13.06 2011 Kirkwood Donavin, Cornell College Name Year School Finals Points ======================================================================= Finals 1 Kevin McCarthy SR Wabash 4:08.93# 10 2 Patrick Klein SR Wis.-Platteville 4:10.36# 8 3 Chris Brown SR Brandeis 4:11.24# 6 4 Matt Turlip SR NYU 4:11.56# 5 5 Dan Smith SR Ohio Northern 4:11.65# 4 6 Connor Rose SR Tufts 4:15.85 3 7 Brian Saksa SO St. Olaf 4:15.86 2 8 Dan Sullivan SO Wis.-Stevens Point 4:16.57 1 9 Jared Brandenburg SR Wis.-River Falls 4:16.86 -- Patrick Grimes JR Amherst DNF


text:
DAC Collection Artist Information
Adolphe Braun
French photographer
Brief biography, in most instances from the Union List of Artist Names® Online:
Braun was associated with the Société Française de Photographie. He opened his first studio in Dornach, Alsace, or in Mulhouse France in 1850 and another studio in Paris in 1868 or 1873 with his son Gaston. They were assisted by Adolphe's son-in-law, Léon Clément . Upon Adolphe Braun's death in 1877, the firm was run by Gaston, his son-in-law Léon Clément and Louis Pierson. At this point the firm may have changed its name to Braun, Clément & Cie.
Artist ID number in the Union List of Artist Names®: ULAN 500016067.
The ULAN link above leads to a cataloging authority record at the Getty Research Institute.


text:
Bahasa Malayu
Gifts Catalogue
AmBank BonusLink Visa Card
BonusLink e-pay Store
Web Specials
Privacy Notice
Home Favourites
Kitchen Essentials
Just Tech
Soft Furnishings
Be In Style
Watches & Fragrances
Simply Bags
Fun & Discovery
Hobbies & Interests
Shop & Dine
All Categories
Not a Member? Sign up now!
Contact Us
Find Gifts
Search BonusLink.com.my
If you cannot view this page, click here
ibis Styles Kuala Lumpur Fraser Business Park Hotel
Other Highlights
SyiokNyer Raya Bersama BonusLink!
AmBank BonusLink Visa Card
Convert Your BonusLink Points to Malindo Miles Now!
Book with Agoda & Stand a chance to WIN!
Collect BonusLink Points with Rakuten Trade!
BonusLink Mobile App Exclusive Offers!
AmBank BonusLink Terminal Redemption
Easier for You to Redeem!
Healthy Living!
Shell BonusLink Premium Items
Collect up to Extra 1,500 BonusLink Points at Parkson!
Give your Parents a Surprise!
Sambutlah Raya bersama BonusLink!
Shop & Win Winners Announcement
BonusLink Members' Day Sale Exclusive @ Parkson!
Level Up Your Lifestyle with BonusLink!
BonusLink X Ponta
Pay with your BonusLink Point at Shell!
Use your Date of Birth as PIN!
Pay Your Bills with BonusLink and Collect BonusLink Points!
Submit Your Testimonials
Subscribe to e-Statement & redeem Exclusive Gifts
Limited Edition School Essentials
Scam Alert!
Oh My Goodies!
BonusLink is Now on Samsung Pay!
Member Services
Member Login
Register Instant Card
Card Replacement
Set PIN
Check Points
Submit Your Testimonial
Need Help?
Contact Us
What's Hot?
Most Popular Gifts
Top 20 Gifts
Redemption Channels
Pointers Magazine
BonusLink Membership
About Us
How It Works
Free Membership
Our Partners
Membership T&C
AmBank BonusLink Visa Card
Features and Benefits
How to use the Credit Card at Shell
How to use the Credit Card at other BonusLink Partners
Terms & Conditions
Apply NOW
Check Application Status
AmBank BonusLink Terminal Redemption
How It Works
Participating Merchants & Outlets
Terms & Conditions
About BonusLink
Company Overview
Business Opportunities
Job Opportunities
Copyright © 2002-2019 BonusKad Loyalty Sdn Bhd (438200-T). All rights reserved.
Best viewed on Mozilla Firefox (1024 x 768).