Ark. Code Ann. » Title 4 Chapter 09
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312 (2026)

Perfection of security interests in chattel paper, deposit accounts, documents, goods covered by documents, instruments, investment property, letter-of-credit rights, and money — Perfection by permissive filing — Temporary perfection without filing or transfer of possession

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. A security interest in chattel paper, negotiable documents, instruments, or investment property may be perfected by filing.
  2. Except as otherwise provided in § 4-9-315(c) and (d) for proceeds:
    1. a security interest in a deposit account may be perfected only by control under § 4-9-314;
    2. and except as otherwise provided in § 4-9-308(d), a security interest in a letter-of-credit right may be perfected only by control under § 4-9-314; and
    3. a security interest in money may be perfected only by the secured party's taking possession under § 4-9-313.
  3. While goods are in the possession of a bailee that has issued a negotiable document covering the goods:
    1. a security interest in the goods may be perfected by perfecting a security interest in the document; and
    2. a security interest perfected in the document has priority over any security interest that becomes perfected in the goods by another method during that time.
  4. While goods are in the possession of a bailee that has issued a nonnegotiable document covering the goods, a security interest in the goods may be perfected by:
    1. issuance of a document in the name of the secured party;
    2. the bailee's receipt of notification of the secured party's interest; or
    3. filing as to the goods.
  5. A security interest in certificated securities, negotiable documents, or instruments is perfected without filing or the taking of possession or control for a period of twenty (20) days from the time it attaches to the extent that it arises for new value given under an authenticated security agreement.
  6. A perfected security interest in a negotiable document or goods in possession of a bailee, other than one that has issued a negotiable document for the goods, remains perfected for twenty (20) days without filing if the secured party makes available to the debtor the goods or documents representing the goods for the purpose of:
    1. ultimate sale or exchange; or
    2. loading, unloading, storing, shipping, transshipping, manufacturing, processing, or otherwise dealing with them in a manner preliminary to their sale or exchange.
  7. A perfected security interest in a certificated security or instrument remains perfected for twenty (20) days without filing if the secured party delivers the security certificate or instrument to the debtor for the purpose of:
    1. ultimate sale or exchange; or
    2. presentation, collection, enforcement, renewal, or registration of transfer.
  8. After the twenty-day period specified in subsection (e), (f), or (g) expires, perfection depends upon compliance with this chapter.

History. Acts 2001, No. 1439, § 1; 2007, No. 342, § 33.

Research References

ALR.

Perfection of Security Interests by Possession, Delivery, or Control under Revised Article 9 of Uniform Commercial Code. 53 A.L.R.6th 159.

Ark. L. Notes.

Laurence, Update: Some Practical Advice on How to Create a Security Interest in a Deposit Account, 2002 Arkansas L. Notes 45.

Case Notes

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).

Deposit Accounts.

Where (1) 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 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), creditor did not have to take any additional steps 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).

Instruments.

Where a delivery debenture was a “security” and qualified as an “instrument” within the meaning of former § 4-9-105(1)(i), when the secured party took possession of the delivery debenture, it perfected its security interest in the debenture. In re Glass, 692 F.2d 55 (8th Cir. 1982) (decision under prior law).

Where debtor assigned promissory note to his parents, but thereafter filed suit to collect the note, and transferred some of the proceeds to them, the parents did not “possess” the note while the debtor was enforcing it, and thus, under the pre-2001 version of this chapter, they did not have a perfected security interest in the note or its proceeds, and the trustee was entitled to avoid the preferential transfer of the proceeds. Luker v. Reeves, 65 F.3d 670 (8th Cir. 1995) (decision under prior law).

Stock.

No pre-2001 UCC provision prohibits junior creditors from asserting a security interest in stock already pledged to a senior secured party. In re Russell, 101 B.R. 62 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1989) (decision under prior law).

Surrender of Possession.

When bank surrendered possession of note which it held as security for a loan, it 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).

Where the senior secured party in possession of the collateral acknowledges and accepts the instructions of the pledgor to deliver the collateral to the junior secured party after the debt to the senior secured party is satisfied under the pre-2001 version of this chapter, then the senior secured party is considered to possess the collateral as the agent or bailee of the junior secured party. In re Russell, 101 B.R. 62 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1989) (decision under prior law).

Cited: Affiliated Food Stores, Inc. v. F & M Bank, 300 Ark. 450, 780 S.W.2d 20 (1989) (decision under prior law).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1988–2006 · leading case: Herringer v. Mercantile Bank of Jonesboro, 866 S.W.2d 390 (Ark. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Herringer v. Mercantile Bank of Jonesboro, 866 S.W.2d 390 (Ark. 1993). · cites it 9× “] See also Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312 (1987), Official Comment, Section (4).”
River Valley Bank of Russellville v. Ace Sports Mgmt., LLC (In Re Ace Sports Mgmt., LLC), 271 B.R. 134 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2001). · cites it 6× “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312 (5)(a) (Michie 1991 & Supp.”
Nef v. Ag Servs. of Am., Inc., 86 S.W.3d 4 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Without a doubt, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312 (5) is a “pure race” statute: That is, the one who wins the “race” to the court house to file is superior without regard to the state of his knowledge.”
Rice v. Fas Fax Corp. (In Re Hot Shots Burgers & Fries, Inc.), 169 B.R. 920 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1994). · cites it 6× “Where the debtor has given more than one security interest in the same property, the priority to be applied in the case of conflicting security interests is governed by Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312 (5)(a) (Michie Repl.”
Womack v. Newman Fixture Co., 766 S.W.2d 949 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “1985) (now Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312 (4) (1987)), provides: (4) A purchase money security interest in collateral other than inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same collateral or its proceeds if the purchase money security interest is perfected at…”
Niedermeier v. Cent. Prod. Credit Ass'n, 777 S.W.2d 210 (Ark. 1989). · cites it 28× “This case involves the interpretation of Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312 (1987). The issue is a priority dispute between the secured creditors of appellant Ray Niedermeier.”
Affiliated Food Stores, Inc. v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 780 S.W.2d 20 (Ark. 1989). · cites it 2× “The court noted that priority was to be determined by the “first to file” provision of Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312 (5) and (6) (Supp.”
First Nat'l Bank v. Massachusetts Gen. Life Ins., 752 S.W.2d 1 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 2× “§ 4-9-302 (1987), and claimed a security interest in the commissions and bonuses due Lifesavers from Massachusetts General.”
Womack v. Newman Fixture Co., 785 S.W.2d 226 (Ark. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “1985) (now Ark.Code Ann. § 4-9-312), it would appear to go to the party who first filed a financing statement.”
Faulkner v. Contractor's Glass Co. (In Re Contractor's Glass Co.), 152 B.R. 270 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1992). · cites it 4× “Ark.Code Ann. § 4-9-312(5) (Michie 1991).”
Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Fewell (In Re Fewell), 352 B.R. 98 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2006). · cites it 3× “, Ark.Code Ann. §§ 4-9-312, 314, or 104, expressly address the impact of its assignment; and, therefore, Ark.”
Duke Wholesale, Inc. v. Pitchford, 56 S.W.3d 399 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, a PMSI in inventory has “priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory and also has priority in identifiable cash proceeds .”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312(4) — 1 case
Womack v. Newman Fixture Co., 785 S.W.2d 226 (Ark. Ct. App. 1990). “1985) (now Ark.Code Ann. § 4-9-312), it would appear to go to the party who first filed a financing statement.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312(5) — 1 case
Faulkner v. Contractor's Glass Co. (In Re Contractor's Glass Co.), 152 B.R. 270 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1992). “Ark.Code Ann. § 4-9-312(5) (Michie 1991).”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312(5)(a) — 3 cases
River Valley Bank of Russellville v. Ace Sports Mgmt., LLC (In Re Ace Sports Mgmt., LLC), 271 B.R. 134 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2001). “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312 (5)(a) (Michie 1991 & Supp.”
Rice v. Fas Fax Corp. (In Re Hot Shots Burgers & Fries, Inc.), 169 B.R. 920 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1994). “Where the debtor has given more than one security interest in the same property, the priority to be applied in the case of conflicting security interests is governed by Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312 (5)(a) (Michie Repl.”
Faulkner v. Contractor's Glass Co. (In Re Contractor's Glass Co.), 152 B.R. 270 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1992). “Ark.Code Ann. § 4-9-312(5) (Michie 1991).”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312(5)(b) — 1 case
J-M Mfg. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Dewitt, 14 S.W.3d 534 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000).
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-312(b)(l) — 1 case
Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Fewell (In Re Fewell), 352 B.R. 98 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2006). “, Ark.Code Ann. §§ 4-9-312, 314, or 104, expressly address the impact of its assignment; and, therefore, Ark.”
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.