Gibraltar Financial Corp. v. Prestige Equipment Corp.
Indiana Supreme Court
949 N.E.2d 314 (2011)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Vitco Industries, Inc. (Vitco) bought a punch press for $243,000. Key Equipment Finance, Inc. (Key) then entered into a lease agreement with Vitco, under which Key paid Vitco $243,000 and Vitco was entitled to continue using the press in exchange for monthly payments for six years. Under the agreement’s early-buyout option (EBO), Vitco could buy the press after five years for $78,464.70. If Vitco did not exercise the EBO by the end of the six-year term, Vitco could buy the press for fair market value, renew the lease, or return the press to Key. Vitco entered into several loan agreements with Gibraltar Financial Corporation (Gibraltar) (plaintiff). Vitco granted a security interest in its property to Gibraltar. When Vitco defaulted under the loan agreements, Key repossessed and sold the press to Prestige Equipment Corporation (Prestige) (defendant). Gibraltar sued Prestige to recover the value of the press, arguing that Prestige had acquired the press subject to Gibraltar’s security interest. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Prestige, finding that the agreement between Key and Vitco was a lease and that Gibraltar therefore did not have a security interest in the press. The court of appeals affirmed. Gibraltar appealed, arguing that the agreement represented a sale subject to Gibraltar’s security interests.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sullivan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
