In January 2005, Joseph Palmer executed a retail installment contract and security agreement with Suburban Tractor Company to finance the purchase of a compact utility tractor and front loader. Palmer stated in the loan documentation that the equipment would be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Suburban subsequently assigned the contract to Deere & Company. Neither Deere nor Suburban filed a financing statement with the Ohio Secretary of State with respect to the lien claimed on the equipment. Palmer filed for bankruptcy and, in the creditors' meeting, testified that he purchased the equipment primarily for use in his greyhound training business, as it was needed to haul supplies and maintain the kennels on his property. Based upon this testimony, the bankruptcy trustee claimed that the security interest was not properly perfected and was subordinate to a hypothetical lien creditor as represented by the estate. Deere contended that it was entitled to rely on Palmer's representations in the loan documentation that the equipment would be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and, because the equipment constituted consumer goods, the filing of a financing statement was not required in order to perfect its purchase-money security interest. Was Deere entitled to rely on Palmer's representation in the loan documents that the equipment he financed was going to be used for personal rather than commercial purposes? Should Palmer's actual use of the equipment carry more evidentiary weight than his statements in the contract and security agreement? Why or why not? [In re Palmer, 365 B.R. 816 (S.D. Ohio 2007).]