David Duckworth $($defendant$)$ borrowed $$1\mathrm{.}1$ million from the State Bank of Toulon $($the Bank$)($plaintiff$).$ Although this was a single transaction, the transaction included two separate documents: $(1)$ a promissory note dated and signed on December $15,2008,$ and $(2)$ an Agricultural Security Agreement dated December $13,2008.$ The security agreement granted a security interest in Duckworths crops and farm equipment in exchange for the promissory note. However, the security agreement referenced a promissory note dated December $13,2008.$ No such note existed. The only promissory note in the transaction was the one dated December $15,2008.$ Duckworth filed for bankruptcy in $2010.$ The Bank filed an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court, seeking to enforce the security agreement. To fulfill the trustees duty to maximize recovery for unsecured creditors, the bankruptcy trustee argued that the incorrect date made the Banks security agreement ineffective. The bankruptcy court disagreed, and ruled that the Bank could enforce the security agreement. The trustee appealed to the district court, which affirmed. The trustee then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Explain this case? Explain the outcome