Jeremy S Jack and Theresa M Jack, 579 B.R. 627

Debtors Jeremy and Theresa Jack leased bedroom furniture and a tool bench from Acceptance Now under a rental‑purchase agreement with an initial two‑month term and automatic renewals.
The Agreement allowed ownership by paying the stated purchase price, making 37 monthly payments, or exercising an early purchase option.
Debtors filed Chapter 13 and proposed a plan treating Acceptance Now as a secured creditor with the Furniture valued at $900.
Acceptance Now moved to compel the Debtors to assume or reject the unexpired personal property lease under 11 U.S.C. § 365.
The core legal question was whether the Agreement is a security agreement or a true lease under Florida law (the Rental‑Purchase Agreement Act).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the rental‑purchase agreement is a security agreement or a true lease	Agreement is a true lease under Florida law and thus must be assumed or rejected under § 365	Agreement is a disguised security agreement (implicitly argued by treating claim as secured in the Plan)	The Agreement is a true lease under Florida’s Rental‑Purchase Agreement Act (initial term ≤4 months, household use, automatic renewal, ownership option)
Whether the debtor must assume or reject the agreement under § 365	§ 365 applies to unexpired leases; lessor may compel assumption or rejection	Debtor treated claim as secured in Plan, but that does not change characterization under state law	Court ordered Debtor to assume or reject the Agreement under § 365(d)(2)

Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (1979) (property interests in bankruptcy are defined by state law)
In re Porterfield, 331 B.R. 480 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2005) (Florida Rental‑Purchase Act means rental‑purchase agreements are true leases)
In re Rembert, 293 B.R. 664 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2003) (rental‑purchase agreements treated as leases subject to § 365)
In re Grubbs Const. Co., 319 B.R. 698 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005) (factors used to distinguish leases from security agreements)