Court Opinion

ID: 9458317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:48:42.366605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:43.129870
License: Public Domain

KALODNER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I disagree with the majority’s ruling that in the instant case “the security deposit was a contract right within the meaning of the Code and was thus covered by the perfected security agreement of appellee Drew.”
I am of the opinion that the right of return of a security deposit under a real estate lease is not a “contract right” within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code, as defined in Section 9-106. That being so, I would, without more, reverse the Order of the District Court granting summary judgment in favor of the appellee E. F. Drew & Co., Inc. and remand the cause with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of the United States.