Carlson v. Giacchetti
616 N.E.2d 810, 35 Mass. App. Ct. 57 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An equipment lease is considered a 'true lease' rather than a security agreement under the Uniform Commercial Code if the lessor retains an economically significant reversionary interest in the goods at the conclusion of the lease term.
Facts:
- John Carlson manufactured and leased specialized auto body repair machinery.
- In April 1988, Carlson leased a chassis liner machine to Richard A. King for a term of sixty months, with total payments amounting to $34,344.
- The written lease agreement did not contain an option for King to purchase the equipment at the end of the term.
- In October 1988, King's business failed and he sold the leased chassis liner to Louis Giacchetti for $8,600.
- At the time of the sale, Giacchetti had no notice of Carlson's ownership interest in the machine.
- It was determined that at the end of the lease term, the equipment would still have a significant resale value.
Procedural Posture:
- John Carlson (plaintiff) brought an action for conversion against Louis Giacchetti (defendant) in the Superior Court.
- Following a bench trial, the trial judge ruled that the agreement between Carlson and King was a security agreement, not a true lease.
- The judge entered a judgment in favor of Giacchetti, concluding that Carlson's failure to timely perfect his security interest was fatal to his claim.
- Carlson (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an equipment lease agreement create a security interest under the UCC when the lessor retains an economically significant reversionary interest in the equipment at the end of the lease term?
Opinions:
Majority - Gillerman, J.
No. The agreement is a 'true lease' and not one intended as a security agreement. The determination of whether a lease is a 'true lease' or a disguised security agreement hinges on an economic analysis of the transaction, rather than the subjective intent of the parties or a checklist of factors. The most critical factor is whether the lessor has retained an economically significant reversionary interest in the leased goods. In this case, the trial court found that upon termination of the lease, Carlson was entitled to the return of equipment that still possessed significant resale value. This retention of a meaningful residual interest by the lessor requires the conclusion that the transaction was a true lease. Therefore, King only had a leasehold interest and lacked the authority to transfer title of the equipment to Giacchetti.
Analysis:
This decision effectively shifts the analysis for distinguishing a true lease from a security agreement in Massachusetts away from the unpredictable, multi-factor 'intent of the parties' test. It adopts the more modern 'economic realities' test, which focuses on the objective economic substance of the transaction, specifically the disposition of residual value. This provides greater certainty for commercial parties by establishing that if a lessor retains a meaningful economic interest in the asset after the lease term, the agreement will be treated as a true lease. This approach aligns Massachusetts jurisprudence with the then-proposed (and later widely adopted) revisions to UCC § 1-201(37), simplifying the analysis and enhancing predictability in commercial law.
