Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 47
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9104 (2026)

Control of deposit account

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A secured party has control of a deposit account if:

1. The secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained;

2. The debtor, secured party and bank have agreed in an authenticated record that the bank will comply with instructions originated by the secured party directing disposition of the funds in the deposit account without further consent by the debtor; or

3. The secured party becomes the bank's customer with respect to the deposit account.

B. A secured party that has satisfied subsection A has control, even if the debtor retains the right to direct the disposition of funds from the deposit account.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1987–1996 · leading case: Concrete Equip. Co. v. Fox (In Re Vigil Bros. Constr.), 193 B.R. 513 (9th Cir. BAP 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Concrete Equip. Co. v. Fox (In Re Vigil Bros. Constr.), 193 B.R. 513 (9th Cir. BAP 1996). · cites it 3× “■ CECO claims that the assignment did not create a security interest because the parties did not intend for it to have such effect.”
In Re Ggvxx, Ltd., 130 B.R. 322 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1991). · cites it 2× “Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 47-9104(10). Security interests exempted from UCC provisions by this section must be perfected in accordance with Arizona real property laws.”
Valley Nat'l Bank v. Cotton Growers Hail Ins., 747 P.2d 1225 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Appellants first reason that under A.R.S. § 47-9104(9) (U.C.C. § 9—104(i)) their right of set-off was unaffected by the bank’s security interest, because the right of “set-off” is excluded from the coverage of Article 9: This chapter does not apply: * * * * * * 9.”
Ex-Cell-O Corp. v. Lincor Props., 762 P.2d 594 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 47-9104(2). A.R.S. § 33-362(A) provides in part: “The landlord shall have a lien on all property of his tenant not exempt by law, placed upon or used on the leased premises, until the rent is paid.”
Elf Atochem North Am., Inc. v. Celco, Inc., 927 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “Except as otherwise provided in § 47-9104 [excluded transactions], this chapter applies: 1.”
Fogler v. Casa Grande Cotton Fin. Co. (In Re Allen), 134 B.R. 373 (9th Cir. BAP 1991). “” A.R.S. § 47-9104(10). But there are several exceptions to this rule, notably Comment 4 to U.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9104(10) — 2 cases
In Re Ggvxx, Ltd., 130 B.R. 322 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1991). “Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 47-9104(10). Security interests exempted from UCC provisions by this section must be perfected in accordance with Arizona real property laws.”
Fogler v. Casa Grande Cotton Fin. Co. (In Re Allen), 134 B.R. 373 (9th Cir. BAP 1991). “” A.R.S. § 47-9104(10). But there are several exceptions to this rule, notably Comment 4 to U.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9104(2) — 1 case
Ex-Cell-O Corp. v. Lincor Props., 762 P.2d 594 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “A.R.S. § 47-9104(2). A.R.S. § 33-362(A) provides in part: “The landlord shall have a lien on all property of his tenant not exempt by law, placed upon or used on the leased premises, until the rent is paid.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9104(6) — 1 case
Concrete Equip. Co. v. Fox (In Re Vigil Bros. Constr.), 193 B.R. 513 (9th Cir. BAP 1996). “■ CECO claims that the assignment did not create a security interest because the parties did not intend for it to have such effect.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9104(9) — 1 case
Valley Nat'l Bank v. Cotton Growers Hail Ins., 747 P.2d 1225 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “Appellants first reason that under A.R.S. § 47-9104(9) (U.C.C. § 9—104(i)) their right of set-off was unaffected by the bank’s security interest, because the right of “set-off” is excluded from the coverage of Article 9: This chapter does not apply: * * * * * * 9.”
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.