Court Opinion

ID: 9535280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:47:40.157814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:12.624186
License: Public Domain

SPIESS, Chief Judge (specially concurring). I concur in the result reached in the opinion authored by Judge OMAN. It is my view, however, that the lien of the security interest of Laco Auto Leasing, Inc. in the property involved attached before installation. The opinion, I think, correctly concludes that in accordance with § 50A-9-204(l), ■N.M.S.A.,' 1953, the agreement to finance the purchase of the property was concluded and value given before installation. I think the buyer, Kenner, likewise obtained a property interest prior to installation. The property could not have been taken to the farm for installation without identifying it as goods to which the contract referred. Consequently, under § 50A-2-501, N.M.S.A., 1953, the buyer, Kenner, obtained a property interest upon identification which necessarily occurred before installation. According to my view, all events specified by § 50A-9-204(l), supra, took place prior to installation, and not concurrently therewith as indicated by the opinion. If, upon installation the property became a fixture, it became so subject to the lien of the security interest and this interest took priority under § 50A-9-313(2), N.M S.A., 1953, over claims of the owners of the real estate (Honea).