Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 7-9-301 (2026)
Persons Who Take Priority Over Unperfected Security Interests; “Lien Creditor.”
✓ 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Repealed by Act 2001-481, p. 647, § 4, effective January 1, 2002.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; Acts 1979, No. 79-256, p. 390; Acts 1981, No. 81-312, p. 399; Acts 1996, No. 96-742, p. 1241, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1979–1998 · leading case: Harwell v. First Nat'l Bank of Wetumpka (In Re Sewell), 32 B.R. 116 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1983).
Harwell v. First Nat'l Bank of Wetumpka (In Re Sewell), 32 B.R. 116 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1983). “Code of Ala.1975, § 7-9-403, or the 1981 amendment [1981 Ala.”
Smoot v. Southtrust Mobile Servs., Inc. (In Re Smoot), 134 B.R. 960 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1991). “§ 544 and Code of Alabama (1975) § 7-9-301. A judgment was entered in favor of debtor and against SMSI for the sum of $816.”
In Re Satterwhite, 28 B.R. 178 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 1983). “See Code of Alabama 1975, Section 7-9-301, and Title 11, U.S.Code, Section 544(a).”
Bank of Gadsden v. Jones (In Re Jones), 2 B.R. 46 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1979). “See Code of Alabama § 7-9-301 (1975). 4 . Code of Alabama § 8-8-1 (1975).”
First Maryland Leasecorp. v. M/V Golden Egret, 764 F.2d 749 (11th Cir. 1985). “To support its argument for priority, FML notes that under Ala.Code § 7-9-301 (1984), a perfected security interest has priority over subsequent “lien creditors.”
Underwood v. Kensington Mortg. & Fin. Co. (In Re Tuders), 77 B.R. 904 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1987). “See, § 7-9-301 (1 )(b) and (3), Code of Ala. (1975, 1984 Replacement Vol.”
First State Bank of Lineville v. Deeb (In Re Deeb), 47 B.R. 848 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1985). “Alabama Code § 7-9-301 provides that an “unperfected” security interest is subordinate to the rights of a person who becomes a “lien creditor” before the security interest is perfected, which includes “a trustee in bankruptcy from the date of the filing of the petition.”
Davis-Hunt Cotton Co., Inc. v. Bank Indep., 541 So. 2d 5 (Ala. 1989). “Ala.Code 1975, § 7-9-301(l)(c), provides that a buyer of farm products in the ordinary course of business has priority over unperfected security interests if the buyer gives value and receives the collateral without knowledge of the security interest.”
In re Deeb, 59 B.R. 661 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1986). “Code of Ala. § 7-9-301(3) (1975, rep. vol.”
Whittington v. Reeves (In re Reeves), 11 B.R. 302 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1981). “Section 32-8-61, 1975 Alabama Code, as amended, and Section 7-9-301, 1975 Alabama Code, as amended.”
Matter of Kitchen Trend of Homewood, Inc., 55 B.R. 553 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1985). “Code of Alabama, 1975, § 7-9-301(b). See, In Re Amsco, Inc., 26 B.”
In Re Mitchell, 44 B.R. 485 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1984). “Code of Alabama (1975), §§ 7-9-301, 7-9-302, 7-9-402, and 7-9-401.”
— Ala. Code § 7-9-301(1) — 1 case
Harwell v. First Nat'l Bank of Wetumpka (In Re Sewell), 32 B.R. 116 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1983). “Code of Ala.1975, § 7-9-403, or the 1981 amendment [1981 Ala.”
— Ala. Code § 7-9-301(2) — 1 case
Hope v. Performance Auto., Inc., 710 So. 2d 1235 (Ala. 1998).
— Ala. Code § 7-9-301(3) — 2 cases
First Maryland Leasecorp. v. M/V Golden Egret, 764 F.2d 749 (11th Cir. 1985). “To support its argument for priority, FML notes that under Ala.Code § 7-9-301 (1984), a perfected security interest has priority over subsequent “lien creditors.”
In re Deeb, 59 B.R. 661 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1986). “Code of Ala. § 7-9-301(3) (1975, rep. vol.”
— Ala. Code § 7-9-301(b) — 1 case
Matter of Kitchen Trend of Homewood, Inc., 55 B.R. 553 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1985). “Code of Alabama, 1975, § 7-9-301(b). See, In Re Amsco, Inc., 26 B.”
— Ala. Code § 7-9-301(l)(b) — 1 case
Smoot v. Southtrust Mobile Servs., Inc. (In Re Smoot), 134 B.R. 960 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1991). “§ 544 and Code of Alabama (1975) § 7-9-301. A judgment was entered in favor of debtor and against SMSI for the sum of $816.”
— Ala. Code § 7-9-301(l)(c) — 2 cases
Davis-Hunt Cotton Co., Inc. v. Bank Indep., 541 So. 2d 5 (Ala. 1989). “Ala.Code 1975, § 7-9-301(l)(c), provides that a buyer of farm products in the ordinary course of business has priority over unperfected security interests if the buyer gives value and receives the collateral without knowledge of the security interest.”
Hope v. Performance Auto., Inc., 710 So. 2d 1235 (Ala. 1998).
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.