Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 7-9-110 (2026)
Sufficiency of Description.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Repealed by Act 2001-481, p. 647, § 4, effective January 1, 2002.
(Acts 1965, No. 549, p. 811.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1982–1997 · leading case: Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Dixie Fuels, Inc. (In Re Dixie Fuels, Inc.), 48 B.R. 514 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1985).
Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Dixie Fuels, Inc. (In Re Dixie Fuels, Inc.), 48 B.R. 514 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1985). “The inquiry may be re-stated to be whether the words “along with all present and future attachments and accessories thereto and replacements and proceeds thereof .”
First Nat. Bank of Franklin Cty. v. Smith, 447 So. 2d 705 (Ala. 1984). “1 The sufficiency of descriptions in security agreements and financing statements is governed by § 7-9-110, which provides that a description is sufficient whether or not it is specific if it "reasonably identifies what is described.”
AmSouth Bank, N.A. v. ORIX Credit All., Inc. (In Re Delta Resources, Inc.), 162 B.R. 562 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1993). “Included in the purported purchase money collateral in addition to the machines it had financed were the following items of property of the debtor: (A) Equipment (B) Inventory (C) Accounts (D) General Intangibles In addition, the proof of claim also claimed a security interest…”
Gold Kist, Inc. v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 425 So. 2d 452 (Ala. 1983). “Farmers, relying on the following provisions of the Code, maintains that the description given suffices.”
Leasing Serv. Corp. v. Hobbs Equip. Co., 707 F. Supp. 1276 (N.D. Ala. 1989). “Code § 7-9-110 (1975). The question in every case is whether the financing statement has reasonably notified third parties that further inquiry must be made to determine exactly what is covered by the security agreement.”
Citizens Bank v. Preuit Est., 425 So. 2d 470 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982). “" In Associates Capital Corp, supra , this court held. "The requirement of the description of the collateral is not for the purpose of informing [any] third party that the exact item which he is considering taking as security is already subject to a prior security interest,…”
Hoc, Inc. v. McAllister, 211 B.R. 976 (N.D. Ala. 1997). “” Ala.Code 1975, § 7-9-110. See Galleon Industries, Inc.”
In Re McAllister, 211 B.R. 976 (N.D. Ala. 1997). “" Ala.Code 1975, § 7-9-110. See Galleon Industries, Inc.”
HOC, Inc. v. McAllister (In re McAllister), 215 B.R. 217 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1996). “” Ala.Code 1975, § 7-9-110. See Galleon Indus.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.