TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Walter D. Sanders, Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Atlanta Times, Inc., Bankrupt v. National Acceptance Company of America

Walter D. SANDERS, Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Atlanta Times, Inc., Bankrupt, Appellant, v. NATIONAL ACCEPTANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee

Sanders v. Nat'l Acceptance Co. of Am., 383 F.2d 606 (5th Cir. 1967)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 2, 1967
Docket
No. 24372
Judges
Tuttle, Bell, Simpson
Citations
383 F.2d 6064 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 793

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This appeal involves a petition for reclamation of property held by the bankrupt under two agreements. The property has been sold and the parties agree that the funds representing the net recovery from the sale stand in lieu of the property.

The question presented turns on whether the agreements were leases or agreements creating security interests within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code as it exists under the Georgia law. Ga.Code § 109A-1-201[37]. That provision of the Code states that whether a lease is intended as security is to be determined by the facts of each case. The agreements here were not perfected as required under Ga.Code § 109A-9-302 (1) in the event they are held to create security interests and the trustee would be entitled to recover with appellee being relegated to the status of an unsecured creditor.

The agreements were called leases. There was no security deposit in connection with either. Neither contained an option to purchase. Appellee retained ownership at all times. There were renewal provisions at stated prices but the evidence was sufficient, based on market value, to support a finding that the prices were substantial as distinguished from a mere nominal price. The record supports the conclusion reached by the Referee and affirmed by the District Court that the agreements were leases and that they did not involve security interests.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 21 cases

View all citing references →
1968: 21969: 11971: 11973: 11975: 31979: 11981: 21984: 11985: 11991: 11993: 11995: 11996: 11997: 21998: 12001: 119682026peak 1975 · 3

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list