They argue that Yeager's making a refundable security deposit created a debt, not a pledge of collateral, and that the lease agreement in no way indicated any intention on his part or on their part to create a security interest in the security deposit. Other jurisdictions have addressed this issue, often with guidance from statutes that speak specifically to whether a security deposit for an automobile lease should be returned to the lessee with interest. 815 Ill. Comp. Generally, if the account is an interest- bearing account, then the party entitled to the deposit at the end of the lease is entitled to all interest accrued on the deposit. Ala. Code 1975, clearly control the transaction in this case.
Personal property includes money.
924 F. Supp. at 897. Although the court in Demitropoulos relied on the authority of Werbosky, it did not recognize the underlying reasoning of Werbosky. The court's holding in Werbosky concerning the applicability of the New York U.C.C. as it relates to security deposits is narrowly premised and is limited to the fact that the parties did not argue or debate the applicability of the U.C.C. to security deposits made in regard to automobile lease agreements. The court noted that because the arguments were postured for the purpose of a motion to dismiss, all allegations in the complaint must be presumed true. Alabama's U.C.C. Therefore, we conclude, as several other jurisdictions have concluded, that the holding in Demitropoulos is not persuasive authority.