ILNews

High court questions whether transactions are leases or security interest sales

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Examining whether a transaction between two businesses is a lease or a sale subject to security interest, the Indiana Supreme Court has adopted an approach used in Colorado. The court held that various factors, such as the economy, must be considered in each situation to decide that question.

As a result, the state justices have adopted a bright-line rule with multiple parts. Essentially, they leave it up to trial courts and attorneys to determine how each transaction might be interpreted.

The ruling came Tuesday in Gibraltar Financial Corp. v. Prestige Equipment Corporation, et. al , No. 20S03-1010-CV-618, an Elkhart Superior case that involves a contract dispute over a punch press at a now-defunct manufacturing business in northern Indiana.

Vitco Industries was a porcelain manufacturer in Napanee that paid $243,000 for a punch press in early 2004. Later that year, Vitco sold the punch press to Key Equipment Finance for the same amount. Key Finance and Vitco entered into a six-year master lease agreement contract where Vitco would make monthly payments to use the punch press. The contract was governed by Colorado law.  Vitco was no longer in business by 2007 and defaulted on the lease agreement.

But independent of its dealings with Key Finance in that lease agreement, Vitco had also entered into several loan agreements with Gibraltar Financial Corp. and granted Gibraltar a security interest in almost all tangible and intangible property. A separate lawsuit in 2007 resulted in Gibraltar receiving possession of all collateral it had perfected security interest in. Gibraltar sold all of the equipment and credited Vitco with the sale proceeds, but in the meantime Key Finance had repossessed the punch press and sold it in an unrelated business venture with Prestige Equipment Corp.

In May 2008, Gibraltar sued Prestige Equipment, attempting to recover the value of the press on allegations that Prestige had acquired the equipment subject to Gibraltar’s security interest. A line of third-party suits and disputes arose. In the end, the current suit came down to whether the initial transaction between Vitco and Key Financial was a true lease or rather a sale subject to security interest.

Elkhart Superior Judge Charles Wicks granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants after concluding the transaction was a true lease, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that finding last year.

Unable to reach a final decision on whether the agreement was in fact a lease, the Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings but outlined some general rationale in making that decision on these situations in the future.

The justices relied on the Uniform Commercial Code adopted in some form in all 50 states, and they specifically looked at how Colorado has adopted a provision in §1-203 that addresses how to distinguish whether a transaction is a lease or one that creates or retains a security interest. That state has a bright line test involving two-prongs that must be met, and in this case it appears that both prongs have been satisfied to prove the transaction was a security interest, the Indiana justices found.

But other aspects of the contract – such as the early buyout option and fair market value, and any residual interest in the property – must also be examined, and factors such as the economic climate at the time can help determine whether the transaction was a lease or security interest.

“To review, we have applied the objective bright-line test of (Colorado) §1-203(b) and concluded that the Lease did not create a security interest per se,” Justice Frank Sullivan wrote, noting that material facts about the economic issues weren’t provided in the record.

“We see no way of resolving this case without this evidence (about trial-specific facts such as intent between the parties). Because such evidence was not presented, summary judgment was not appropriate.”

The trial court’s judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings to determine whether this specific transaction constituted a lease or security interest.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  2. My situation was hopeless me and my husband was on the verge of divorce. I was in a awful state and felt that I was not able to cope with life any longer. I found out about this great spell caster drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com and tried him. Well, he did return and now we are doing well again, more than ever before. Thank you so much Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.comi will forever be grateful to you Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com

  3. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  4. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  5. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

ADVERTISEMENT