Opinion ID: 55754
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Security Agreement

Text: Under de novo review, was the district court correct when it denied BBFI’s and the Baggetts’ counterclaims for reformation of the February 5, 1998, security agreement? CASC argues that neither BBFI nor the Baggetts sustained their burden of proof that the security agreement was intended only to secure the $212,130.75 promissory note, and not liabilities thereafter arising. Without any discussion, the district court found that the security agreement must be foreclosed. In view of our finding that CASC is liable for the lease payments, and owes more money to the Baggetts than the Baggetts owe to CASC, the judgment of the district court that the security agreement is foreclosed is vacated as moot. This issue requires no further discussion.