F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 6 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
In re:
JOSEPH E. BECKHAM,
Debtor.
J. MICHAEL MORRIS, Trustee, No. 02-3035
D.C. No. 01-CV-1218-WEB
Plaintiff - Appellant, (D. Kansas)
v.
DEALERS LEASING, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before O’BRIEN and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges, and KANE , ** Senior District
Judge.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
The Honorable John L. Kane, Senior District Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court affirming a ruling of
the bankruptcy court denying the Trustee’s complaint to avoid a security interest.
The debtor, Joseph E. Beckham, entered into two commercial vehicle lease
agreements with defendant Dealers Leasing, Inc. (“Dealers”). The Trustee
alleged that the lease agreements were disguised sales and security interests,
which he was entitled to avoid. The bankruptcy court denied the complaint after
concluding the agreements were in fact leases rather than security interests. The
district court affirmed.
Our review of the bankruptcy court’s decision is governed by the
same standards of review that govern the district court’s review of
the bankruptcy court. Accordingly we review the bankruptcy court’s
legal determinations de novo and its factual findings under the
clearly erroneous standard. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it
is without factual support in the record or if, after reviewing all of
the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been made.
Conoco, Inc. v. Styler (In re Peterson Distrib., Inc.), 82 F.3d 956, 959 (10th Cir.
1996) (citations omitted).
This case was submitted on stipulated facts. Both the bankruptcy court
and the district court relied upon Kan. Stat. Ann. § 84-1-201(37), which provides
-2-
a series of tests designed to distinguish security interests from true leases. On
appeal, the Trustee argues: (1) the parties’ intent is not outcome determinative;
(2) the agreements were not terminable by the debtor; (3) the debtor could
purchase the vehicles for nominal additional consideration; (4) under the
economic realities of the transactions, the agreements are not true leases; and
(5) given that the agreements are disguised security interests, Dealers failed to
perfect its security interest and cannot prevail over the Trustee as a lien creditor.
We have examined each of these arguments in light of the record and pertinent
authorities, and conclude that the Trustee has failed to demonstrate reversible
error in either the bankruptcy court’s factual findings or its legal determinations.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
is therefore AFFIRMED for the same reasons stated in the bankruptcy court’s
Memorandum Opinion and Order of June 26, 2001, and the district court’s
Memorandum and Order of January 3, 2002.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-3-