In re Camareno
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
105 F. App’x 3 (2004)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Worry Free Services, Inc. (creditor) installed an air conditioning and heating system in the home of Linda M. Camareno (debtor). Worry Free retained a security interest in the system and filed a financing statement with the secretary of state of Texas as it believed it was required to do by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Later, Camareno filed for bankruptcy. Worry Free filed a claim for the system in the bankruptcy estate, citing its perfected security interest. Camareno filed a motion to avoid Worry Free’s claim, asserting that Worry Free did not have a valid security interest in the system. Camareno reasoned that the system was a fixture that was subject to § 53 of the Texas Property Code rather than Article 9. Under § 53, a contractor with a lien in a fixture was required to file an affidavit describing its lien with the relevant county clerk’s office. Worry Free opposed the motion, arguing that the system was personalty rather than a fixture, and that its filing was sufficient to perfect its security interest. The bankruptcy court found that the system was a fixture and that Worry Free had failed to satisfy the requirements imposed by § 53. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court granted Camareno’s motion to avoid Worry Free’s claim. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court. Worry Free appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.