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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9507 (2026)

Effect of certain events on effectiveness of financing statement

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A filed financing statement remains effective with respect to collateral that is sold, exchanged, leased, licensed or otherwise disposed of and in which a security interest or agricultural lien continues, even if the secured party knows of or consents to the disposition.

B. Except as otherwise provided in subsection C of this section and section 47-9508, a financing statement is not rendered ineffective if, after the financing statement is filed, the information provided in the financing statement becomes seriously misleading under section 47-9506.

C. If the name that a filed financing statement provides for a debtor becomes insufficient as the name of the debtor under section 47-9503, subsection A so that the financing statement becomes seriously misleading under section 47-9506:

1. The financing statement is effective to perfect a security interest in collateral acquired by the debtor before, or within four months after, the filed financing statement becomes seriously misleading; and

2. The financing statement is not effective to perfect a security interest in collateral acquired by the debtor more than four months after the filed financing statement becomes seriously misleading, unless an amendment to the financing statement that renders the financing statement not seriously misleading is filed within four months after the financing statement became seriously misleading.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1988–1996 · leading case: Int'l Harvester Co. v. Fuoss, 758 P.2d 649 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Int'l Harvester Co. v. Fuoss, 758 P.2d 649 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “The fact that a better price could have been obtained by a sale at a different time or in a different method from *381 that selected by the secured party is not of itself sufficient to establish that the sale was not made in a commercially reasonable manner. If the secured party…”
Elf Atochem North Am., Inc. v. Celco, Inc., 927 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “”) section 47-9507(B), it was entitled, as a secured creditor, to payment from the excess proceeds stemming from a “commercially rea *94 sonable” sale of the equipment by Elf Atochem.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-9507(B): 2 cases
Int'l Harvester Co. v. Fuoss, 758 P.2d 649 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “The fact that a better price could have been obtained by a sale at a different time or in a different method from *381 that selected by the secured party is not of itself sufficient to establish that the sale was not made in a commercially reasonable manner. If the secured party…”
Elf Atochem North Am., Inc. v. Celco, Inc., 927 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “”) section 47-9507(B), it was entitled, as a secured creditor, to payment from the excess proceeds stemming from a “commercially rea *94 sonable” sale of the equipment by Elf Atochem.”
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.