Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9105 (2026)

Control of electronic chattel paper

✓ 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 electronic chattel paper if a system employed for evidencing the transfer of interests in the chattel paper reliably establishes the secured party as the person to which the chattel paper was assigned.

B. A system satisfies subsection A of this section if the record or records comprising the chattel paper are created, stored and assigned in such a manner that:

1. A single authoritative copy of the record or records exists that is unique, identifiable and, except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, unalterable;

2. The authoritative copy identifies the secured party as the assignee of the record or records;

3. The authoritative copy is communicated to and maintained by the secured party or its designated custodian;

4. Copies or amendments that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy can be made only with the consent of the secured party;

5. Each copy of the authoritative copy and any copy of a copy is readily identifiable as a copy that is not the authoritative copy; and

6. Any amendment of the authoritative copy is readily identifiable as an authorized or unauthorized revision.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1984–1996 · leading case: Mur-Ray Mgmt. Corp. v. Founders Title Co., 819 P.2d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mur-Ray Mgmt. Corp. v. Founders Title Co., 819 P.2d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 47-9105(A)(11). We therefore need not, and do not, decide the conceded point that the plaintiffs’ security interest is valid.”

Park Tucson Investors Ltd. P'ship v. Ali, 770 F. Supp. 531 (D. Ariz. 1991). · cites it 7× “Second, defendants dispute plaintiffs interpretation of “debtors,” with reference to A.R.S. § 47-9105(A). Defendants contend that the plain meaning of the statute is that the definition of a “debtor” is any person who owes money under the secured obligation— in this case,…”

Bryan v. Nelson, 884 P.2d 252 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “AR.S. § 47-9105 (Supp.1993). Also, A.R.S.”

Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. AGN Dev. Corp., 694 P.2d 1217 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “” Accounts receivable, the collateral in this case, are not considered “goods” as indicated by A.R.S. § 47-9105. b. A.R.S. § 47-9318: Contract Defense We now turn to AGN’s argument that it was entitled to setoff payments made for materials and labor supplied by third parties…”

Arizona Ammonia of Tucson, Inc. v. Mission Bank, 732 P.2d 591 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “This argument ignores the plain definition of those terms set out by the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by the Arizona Legislature.”

In Re One 1983 Toyota, 814 P.2d 356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “§ 13-4301(3) defines "owner" as: [A] person who is not a secured party within the meaning of § 47-9105 and who has an interest in property, whether legal or equitable.”

In re One Residence Located at 4030 W. Avocado, Cortaro Ridge, Lot 32, 908 P.2d 33 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “Under the forfeiture statutes, an “owner” is defined as “a person who is not a secured party within the meaning of § 47-9105 and who has an interest in property, whether legal or equitable.”

Elf Atochem North Am., Inc. v. Celco, Inc., 927 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “section numbers. . It is undisputed that Elf Atochem's security interest attached under section 47-9203(A).”

Int'l Harvester Co. v. Fuoss, 758 P.2d 649 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “The definition of “debt- or,” A.R.S. § 47-9105(A)(5), includes guarantors.”

In Re Prop., Bus., & Bldg. Located at 2120 S. 4th Avenue, Lot 16, Block 8 of Resubdivision of Home Addition No. 2, 870 P.2d 417 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “§ 13-4301(3) states: “Owner” means a person who is not a secured party within the meaning of § 47-9105 and who has an interest in property, whether legal or equitable____ An owner with power to convey property binds other owners, and a spouse binds his spouse, by his act or…”

State ex rel. Corbin v. Valentine, 814 P.2d 356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “§ 13-4301(3) defines “owner” as: [A] person who is not a secured party within the meaning of § 47-9105 and who has an interest in property, whether legal or equitable.”

In re Vigil Bros. Constr., Inc., 181 B.R. 453 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1995). “A.R.S. § 47-9105(A)(3) defines chattel paper as: a writing or writings which evidence both a monetary obligation and a security interest in or a lease of specific goods.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9105(14) — 1 case

Elf Atochem North Am., Inc. v. Celco, Inc., 927 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “section numbers. . It is undisputed that Elf Atochem's security interest attached under section 47-9203(A).”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9105(A) — 2 cases

Park Tucson Investors Ltd. P'ship v. Ali, 770 F. Supp. 531 (D. Ariz. 1991). “Second, defendants dispute plaintiffs interpretation of “debtors,” with reference to A.R.S. § 47-9105(A). Defendants contend that the plain meaning of the statute is that the definition of a “debtor” is any person who owes money under the secured obligation— in this case,…”

Elf Atochem North Am., Inc. v. Celco, Inc., 927 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “section numbers. . It is undisputed that Elf Atochem's security interest attached under section 47-9203(A).”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9105(A)(10) — 1 case

Arizona Ammonia of Tucson, Inc. v. Mission Bank, 732 P.2d 591 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “This argument ignores the plain definition of those terms set out by the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by the Arizona Legislature.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9105(A)(11) — 1 case

Mur-Ray Mgmt. Corp. v. Founders Title Co., 819 P.2d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “A.R.S. § 47-9105(A)(11). We therefore need not, and do not, decide the conceded point that the plaintiffs’ security interest is valid.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9105(A)(3) — 1 case

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9105(A)(5) — 2 cases

Int'l Harvester Co. v. Fuoss, 758 P.2d 649 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “The definition of “debt- or,” A.R.S. § 47-9105(A)(5), includes guarantors.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9105(A)(ll) — 1 case

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.