Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-310 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Notes.

Schneider, Notes on Agricultural Landlord's Liens Under Revised Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 2002 Arkansas L. Notes 53.

Case Notes

Agricultural Lien.

Lender's lien on Arkansas crops was properly perfected by a financing statement because it reasonably identified the Arkansas crops as collateral under § 4-9-108 where it indicated that the collateral consisted of crops produced by two entities, and it suggested that the crops were located in Arkansas; this, along with the name of the secured lender, would have provided a third party with sufficient inquiry notice to locate the Arkansas crops. There was no evidence that an unsuccessful inquiry was made by a farmer prior to providing funding, and there was no unjust enrichment that allowed the farmer's equitable lien to prime the lender's lien because the lender did not participate or encourage the farmer's efforts in providing his own resources in planting and growing the crops. Newsom v. Rabo Agrifinance, Inc., 2013 Ark. App. 259, 427 S.W.3d 688 (2013).

Assignment of Accounts.

In an action by a creditor, to which debtor had assigned accounts receivable, to recover on the accounts, where total accounts receivable assigned represented approximately 16% of debtor's total outstanding accounts receivable, such assignment was not a significant part of debtor's accounts receivable and, thus, no financing statement was required to be filed to perfect a security interest. Standard Lumber Co. v. Chamber Frames, Inc., 317 F. Supp. 837 (E.D. Ark. 1970) (decision under prior law).

In determining what is a significant part of the outstanding accounts of the assignor, a court must examine all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction, including the relative size of the assignment and whether it was casual or isolated. In re B. Hollis Knight Co., 605 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1979) (decision under prior law).

Where the evidence established that out of the amount listed by the contractor as accounts receivable, approximately 50 percent of this amount constituted retainage on construction contracts and, where, since the contractor did not complete its work on any projects after it filed bankruptcy, the retainage proved to be uncollectible due to various counterclaims and setoffs, the district court correctly included the retainage in the contractor's total outstanding accounts. In re B. Hollis Knight Co., 605 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1979) (decision under prior law).

Where (1) the creditor acquired, by assignment, a promissory note issued to a third party, the debtor's guaranties pertaining to the note, and an agreement pledging the CD as security on the debtor's guarantee obligations, (2) the assignor had perfected its security interest in the CD under § 4-9-312(b)(1) by obtaining “control” of the CD, and (3) § 4-9-313, which provided for perfection by possession, was not applicable to the CD, which was a “deposit account” as defined in § 4-9-102(a)(29), the creditor did not have to take any additional steps, such as obtaining control over the CD, to perfect its security interest in the CD because the assignor had perfected its security interest and the security interest remained perfected, through the assignment, as against the debtor. Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Fewell (In re Fewell), 352 B.R. 98 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2006).

Chattel Mortgages.

Former sections 4-9-301 — 4-9-304 concern priorities of perfected and unperfected security interests as against third persons and are not applicable to a chattel mortgage as between the parties. Anderson v. First Jacksonville Bank, 243 Ark. 977, 423 S.W.2d 273 (1968) (decision under prior law).

Conditional Sale.

Lease with a final option to purchase was a conditional sale and the lease was a security interest which should have been filed. In re Shell, 390 F. Supp. 273 (E.D. Ark. 1975) (decision under prior law).

Motor Vehicles.

Where finance company did not file a chattel mortgage on an automobile, its security interest was not perfected, so that the trial court erred in holding the finance company's claim to be prior to that of a garage owner who had possession of the car due to an unpaid repair bill. Henson v. Government Employees Fin. & Indus. Loan Corp., 257 Ark. 273, 516 S.W.2d 1 (1974) (decision under prior law).

Chapter 7 debtor maliciously injured farm equipment that was pledged as collateral for various bank loans within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6); even though the bank's security interest therein was not perfected by the placement of evidence of the lien on the certificate of title per subsection (b) of this section, § 4-9-311, and § 27-14-801 et seq., the security interest was still valid as between the parties to the agreement per § 4-9-317(a)(2)(A) and § 4-9-322. Southern Bancorp South v. Richmond (In re Richmond), 430 B.R. 846 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010).

Possession of Collateral.

Bank which surrendered possession of note which it held as security for a loan lost its security interest in the note. McIlroy Bank v. First Nat'l Bank, 252 Ark. 558, 480 S.W.2d 127 (1972) (decision under prior law).

Cited: United States v. Baptist Golden Age Home, 226 F. Supp. 892 (W.D. Ark. 1964); In re King Furn. City, Inc., 240 F. Supp. 453 (E.D. Ark. 1965); United States v. Trigg, 465 F.2d 1264 (8th Cir. 1972); Rex Fin. Corp. v. Marshall, 406 F. Supp. 567 (W.D. Ark. 1976); Findley Mach. Co. v. Miller, 3 Ark. App. 264, 625 S.W.2d 542 (1981); Davidson v. Ark. River Valley Drain Drying Coop. (In re Glass), 26 B.R. 166 (E.D. Ark. 1982); GE Co. v. M & C Mfg., Inc., 283 Ark. 110, 671 S.W.2d 189 (1984); In re Answerfone, Inc., 48 B.R. 24 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1985); Bassett v. Hobart Corp., 292 Ark. 592, 732 S.W.2d 133 (1987); First Nat'l Bank v. Massachusetts Gen. Life Ins. Co., 296 Ark. 28, 752 S.W.2d 1 (1988); Womack v. Newman Fixture Co., 27 Ark. App. 117, 766 S.W.2d 949 (1989); Herringer v. Mercantile Bank, 315 Ark. 218, 866 S.W.2d 390 (1993) (decisions under prior law).