Court Opinion

ID: 9638553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:46:41.153676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:07.717731
License: Public Domain

BLEIL, Justice,
concurring.
I agree that the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed. Horton’s claim that he showed conclusively that the lease constituted a security interest lacks merit. Because the lease provided that he could become the owner of equipment for additional non-nominal consideration, the détermination of whether the lease was intended for security was a fact question. Federal Sign and Signal Corp. v. Berry, 601 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1980, no writ); Tackett v. Mid-Continent Refrigerator Co., 579 S.W.2d 545 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Davis Brothers v. Misco Leasing, Inc., 508 S.W.2d 908 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1974, no writ); Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 1.201(37) (1968). The jury’s failure to find the fact that the lease was intended for security makes discussion of whether the option price is nominal unnecessary.