Opinion ID: 487154
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Validity and Scope of the Assignment

Text: 17 Prior to filing bankruptcy Lift was engaged in the rental of heavy equipment. The district court ruled that the rentals for such equipment were accounts receivable covered by the assignment. Lift challenges that decision. 18 We look first to the assignment itself, which gives ITT a security interest in receivables, defined as all obligations of every kind at any time owing to us.... Lift argues that this language is not specific enough to effect a valid assignment, relying for this proposition on In re Energy Contractors, 45 B.R. 181 (M.D.La.1984), which held that an assignment of accounts would be valid only if it specifically described the operations whose receivables were assigned, and the place of business applicable to those operations. We recently reversed that ruling, In re Energy Contractors, 791 F.2d 1222 (5th Cir.1986), holding that the Act does not require such specificity. The assignment we held valid in Energy Contractors granted a security interest in and to all of Borrower's ... existing and future accounts. 791 F.2d at 1224. We find the language used in the instant case legally indistinguishable; it is sufficient to constitute a valid assignment. 19 Lift further maintains that the 1979 statute did not permit an assignment of rents. In 1979, Sec. 3101 defined the receivables subject to assignment under the Act to include any indebtedness or part thereof due to, arising out of, or acquired in connection with any business, profession, occupation, or undertaking of the assignor.... In 1980, this definition was amended to include proceeds of the leasing of movable or immovable property. 20 Lift insists that the amendment indicates that the earlier law did not permit assignment of lease payments or rentals. We disagree. The 1979 language encompasses rentals. The items the legislature wanted to exclude from its broad general definition--tort claims, mortgage indebtedness, and indebtedness on promissory notes--were specifically exempted. Had the legislature intended to exclude rentals we are persuaded that it would have done so in like manner. 21 Absent such a legislative statement, and considering the Act's overall purpose of broadening the availability of assignments, Bossier Bank & Trust v. Natchitoches Development Co., Inc., 272 So.2d 731 (La.App.1973), we believe the specific inclusion of rentals in the post-1980 version of the Act was merely a polishing clarification of the earlier definition of accounts receivable. The district court correctly concluded that Lift possessed a valid security interest in the rentals.