Gibraltar Financial Corp. v. Prestige Equipment Corp.
2011 Ind. LEXIS 514, 949 N.E.2d 314, 2011 WL 2493771 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To determine if a transaction is a true lease or a security interest, courts first apply the bright-line test under U.C.C. § 1-203(b). If the transaction is not a per se security interest under that test, courts must then examine the economic realities of the transaction at its inception to determine if the lessor retained a meaningful reversionary interest in the goods.
Facts:
- In April 2004, Vitco Industries, Inc. purchased a punch press for $243,000 to use in its manufacturing business.
- In December 2004, Vitco entered into a sale-leaseback transaction with Key Equipment Finance, Inc. ('Finance'), where Finance paid Vitco $243,000 for the press, and Vitco agreed to make monthly payments to Finance to continue using it.
- The six-year agreement, styled as a 'Master Lease Agreement,' required Vitco to pay for insurance, taxes, and maintenance on the press.
- The agreement contained an Early Buyout Option (EBO) allowing Vitco to purchase the press after five years for a fixed price of $78,464.70.
- At the end of the six-year term, Vitco could purchase the press for its fair market value, renew the lease, or return the equipment.
- Separately, Vitco had granted Gibraltar Financial Corp. a perfected security interest in all of its tangible property, including its equipment.
- By 2007, Vitco had gone out of business and defaulted on its agreement with Finance.
Procedural Posture:
- Gibraltar Financial Corp. filed an action in the trial court against Prestige Equipment Corp. and others (Defendants) to recover the value of the punch press.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding the agreement was a true lease.
- Gibraltar, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
- Gibraltar sought, and was granted, transfer to the Supreme Court of Indiana.
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 a transaction structured as a lease, which does not satisfy the bright-line test for creating a security interest under U.C.C. § 1-203(b), nevertheless create a security interest if the economic realities of the transaction indicate that the only sensible economic course for the lessee is to exercise a purchase option?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, Justice
Yes, a transaction that does not meet the bright-line test for a security interest under U.C.C. § 1-203(b) may still be deemed a security interest if a factual inquiry into the economic realities of the transaction shows the lessor did not retain a meaningful reversionary interest. The court employs a two-step analysis. First, it applies the bright-line test of U.C.C. § 1-203(b), which creates a per se security interest if (1) the payment obligation is not terminable by the lessee, and (2) one of four residual value factors is met. Here, the first prong was met, but the second was not, as neither the end-of-term purchase option (for fair market value) nor the EBO (which was not for nominal consideration under the 'Option Price/Performance Cost Test') automatically created a security interest. Second, because the bright-line test was not met, the court must proceed under § 1-203(a) to examine the 'facts of each case.' This 'economic realities' test focuses on whether the lessor retained a meaningful reversionary interest in the goods, which is determined by the economic factors at the time the transaction was entered into. Key factors include whether the only economically sensible course for the lessee was to exercise the purchase option. Because there was no evidence presented regarding the parties' expectations at the time of the agreement as to the press's future value, it is impossible to determine if exercising the EBO was the only sensible path for Vitco. Therefore, a genuine issue of material fact exists, making summary judgment inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the two-step analytical framework for distinguishing a true lease from a disguised security interest under the modern U.C.C. It emphasizes that failing the bright-line per se test does not end the inquiry. The case establishes that a fact-intensive 'economic realities' test is required, focusing on whether the lessor truly expected to get the goods back with meaningful value. By focusing on whether exercising a purchase option was the 'only economically sensible course,' the court raises the evidentiary bar for summary judgment, requiring parties to produce evidence of their economic expectations at the time the deal was made, not with hindsight.
