Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-1564 Doe v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

By: dmc-admin//August 6, 2001//

00-1564 Doe v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

By: dmc-admin//August 6, 2001//

Listen to this article

This is so because there was no intent expressed in the lease to create a security agreement and a contrary conclusion would derogate from the common-law principle that a security deposit creates only a debt.

“Because we conclude that Wis. Stat. sec. 429.207 does not apply to the security deposit in Doe’s lease with GMAC, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether the benefits accruing to GMAC by virtue of its holding the deposits constituted an ‘increase’ or ‘profits’ under Wis. Stat. sec. 409.207(2)(c).”

Order affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Dunn County, Stewart, J., Deininger, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: James P. Watts, Minneapolis, MN; Ronald S. Goldster, Minneapolis, MN

For Respondent: Ann U. Smith, Madison

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests