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

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-322 (2026)

Priorities among conflicting security interests in and agricultural liens on same collateral

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, priority among conflicting security interests and agricultural liens in the same collateral is determined according to the following rules:
    1. Conflicting perfected security interests and agricultural liens rank according to priority in time of filing or perfection. Priority dates from the earlier of the time a filing covering the collateral is first made or the security interest or agricultural lien is first perfected, if there is no period thereafter when there is neither filing nor perfection.
    2. A perfected security interest or agricultural lien has priority over a conflicting unperfected security interest or agricultural lien.
    3. The first security interest or agricultural lien to attach or become effective has priority if conflicting security interests and agricultural liens are unperfected.
  2. For the purposes of subsection (a)(1):
    1. the time of filing or perfection as to a security interest in collateral is also the time of filing or perfection as to a security interest in proceeds; and
    2. the time of filing or perfection as to a security interest in collateral supported by a supporting obligation is also the time of filing or perfection as to a security interest in the supporting obligation.
  3. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (f), a security interest in collateral which qualifies for priority over a conflicting security interest under § 4-9-327, § 4-9-328, § 4-9-329, § 4-9-330, or § 4-9-331 also has priority over a conflicting security interest in:
    1. any supporting obligation for the collateral; and
    2. proceeds of the collateral if:
      1. the security interest in proceeds is perfected;
      2. the proceeds are cash proceeds or of the same type as the collateral; and
      3. in the case of proceeds that are proceeds of proceeds, all intervening proceeds are cash proceeds, proceeds of the same type as the collateral, or an account relating to the collateral.
  4. Subject to subsection (e) and except as otherwise provided in subsection (f), if a security interest in chattel paper, deposit accounts, negotiable documents, instruments, investment property, or letter-of-credit rights is perfected by a method other than filing, conflicting perfected security interests in proceeds of the collateral rank according to priority in time of filing.
  5. Subsection (d) applies only if the proceeds of the collateral are not cash proceeds, chattel paper, negotiable documents, instruments, investment property, or letter-of-credit rights.
  6. Subsections (a)-(e) are subject to:
    1. subsection (g) and the other provisions of this part;
    2. § 4-4-210 with respect to a security interest of a collecting bank;
    3. § 4-5-118 with respect to a security interest of an issuer or nominated person; and
    4. § 4-9-110 with respect to a security interest arising under Chapter 2 or Chapter 2A.
  7. A perfected agricultural lien on collateral has priority over a conflicting security interest in or agricultural lien on the same collateral if the statute creating the agricultural lien so provides.

History. Acts 2001, No. 1439, § 1.

Research References

Ark. L. Notes.

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

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

Case Notes

Attachment of Interest.

Where the funds in a dealer reserve account were proceeds from the sale of inventory to which the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) security interest in accounts receivable attached, the SBA's perfected security interest took priority over a subsequent lien creditor; even assuming that the SBA's security interest did not attach until all the installment sales contracts had been paid out, a creditor's lien would, at best, attach under the pre-2001 version of this chapter at the same time and would still be subject to the SBA's prior security interest. Sperry Corp. v. Farm Implement, Inc., 760 F.2d 196 (8th Cir. 1985) (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 § 4-9-310(b), § 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 this section. Southern Bancorp South v. Richmond (In re Richmond), 430 B.R. 846 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010).

Continuation Statements.

Where the second financing statement, filed just before the first financing statement expired, contained the signature of the secured party, but did not contain any of the other elements necessary for filing a continuation statement under the pre-2001 version of this chapter, it was not a continuation statement, and the second creditor who had filed a financing statement in the interim was entitled to priority. Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Hilyard Drilling Co., 60 B.R. 500 (Bankr. W.D. Ark.), aff'd, 74 B.R. 125 (W.D. Ark. 1986), aff'd, 840 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1988) (decision under prior law).

Security interest had first priority pursuant to former § 4-9-312(5) where financing statement lapsed due to failure to file a continuation statement, leaving the underlying security interest unperfected. Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Hilyard Drilling Co., 840 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1988) (decision under prior law).

Good Faith.

Where a partnership, which had executed a trust deed covering after-acquired property, executed a security agreement on after-acquired property, in violation of an agreement in connection with the trust deed, to a corporation controlled by the same persons, the corporation was lacking in good faith and was a participant in the breach so as to bar its enforcement of the security agreement in preference to the trust deed. Thompson v. United States, 408 F.2d 1075 (8th Cir. 1969) (decision under prior law).

Because former § 4-9-312(5) (now this section) is a “pure race” statute, mere knowledge of a competitor's claim does not affect priority of the security interest. Nef v. Ag Servs. of Am., Inc., 79 Ark. App. 100, 86 S.W.3d 4 (2002).

Growing Crops.

Where debtor's obligation to repay the Farmer's Home Administration (FmHA) was not more than six months overdue when debtor's 1981 rice crop became a growing crop, subsequent creditor's security interest was not entitled to priority under former § 4-9-312(2), and the FmHA's security interest, being the first to have been perfected, was entitled to priority under former subsection (5). In re Connor, 733 F.2d 523 (8th Cir. 1984) (decision under prior law).

Former § 4-9-312(2) is an accommodation to the special needs of the farming community, giving priority to the so-called “seed money lender” who lends money to a farmer to enable him to plant his crop. Niedermeier v. Central Prod. Credit Ass'n, 300 Ark. 116, 777 S.W.2d 210 (1989) (decision under prior law).

Under former § 4-9-312(2) new value arises where a secured party (1) makes an advance, (2) incurs an obligation, or (3) releases a perfected security interest. Niedermeier v. Central Prod. Credit Ass'n, 300 Ark. 116, 777 S.W.2d 210 (1989) (decision under prior law).

Under the circumstances of the case, the circuit court did not clearly err in concluding that partnerships were a row crop farmer's alter egos and that a bank held a priority lien against crop proceeds because both a creditor and the farmer engaged in inequitable conduct toward the bank; the creditor knew about the bank's lien on partnerships' crops, and to avoid that lien, it pursued subordination in a manner the circuit court characterized as unbusinesslike and imprudent. Agrifund, LLC v. Regions Bank, 2020 Ark. 246 (2020).

Time of Filing.

The seller of equipment to an institution, having a security interest on such equipment, would have had priority over the holder of a deed of trust to the real estate of such institution if he had perfected it by filing it within the statutory period after delivery of the equipment. United States v. Baptist Golden Age Home, 226 F. Supp. 892 (W.D. Ark. 1964) (decision under prior law).

An FHA lien under a deed of trust covering an apartment house and its furniture given by a partnership has priority over the purchase money lien of the corporation which sold the furniture to the partnership where the corporation failed to file its financing statement contemporaneously with the delivery of the furniture or within the statutory period thereafter. United States v. Thompson, 272 F. Supp. 774 (E.D. Ark. 1967), aff'd, 408 F.2d 1075 (8th Cir. 1969) (decision under prior law).

Although bank filed first, it was not the first to file correctly, which was required under the pre-2001 version of this chapter in order for it to have priority. Affiliated Food Stores, Inc. v. F & M Bank, 300 Ark. 450, 780 S.W.2d 20 (1989) (decision under prior law).

Where one creditor bank filed its documents with the Circuit Clerk of Pulaski County and with the Secretary of State, and a second creditor bank later filed its documents with the Circuit Clerk of Saline County and with the Secretary of State, since the debtor had a place of business in more than one county, the security interest was perfected when the financing statement was filed with the Secretary of State's office; thus, the first bank's security interest had priority over the claim of the second bank in the proceeds from the sale of property determined to be property of the estate. Rice v. Fas Fax Corp. (In re Hot Shots Burgers & Fries, Inc.), 169 B.R. 920 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1994) (decision under prior law).

In a bank's suit to recover a judgment against debtors, the trial court did not err in holding that the bank's security interests in the debtors' crops and crop proceeds had priority over appellants' purchase money security interest because the bank had a first-in-time lien on the crops. Searcy Farm Supply, LLC v. Merchs. & Planters Bank, 369 Ark. 487, 256 S.W.3d 496 (2007).

Cited: Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Nat'l Bank of Commerce (In re Hilyard Drilling Co.), 74 B.R. 125 (W.D. Ark. 1986); 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); Stotts v. Johnson, 302 Ark. 439, 791 S.W.2d 351 (1990) (decisions under prior law).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Searcy Farm Supply, LLC v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 256 S.W.3d 496 (Ark. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Searcy Farm Supply, LLC v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 256 S.W.3d 496 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 11× “Specifically, Appellants contend that the circuit court erroneously interpreted Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-322 (Repl. 2001) because, they maintain, its PMSI followed the crop, including the proceeds from the sale of the crop, and took priority over the Bank’s lien.”
Mouton v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp. (In re Mouton), 479 B.R. 55 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Ark.Code Ann. § 4-9-322(a)(3) (Michie 1991); 810 Ill.”
Helena Agri-Enter., LLC v. Simmons Bank (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “§ 4-9-322 (a)(2) (Repl. 2020). “Conflicting perfected security interests and agricultural liens rank according to priority in time of filing or perfection.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-322(a)(1) — 1 case
Helena Agri-Enter., LLC v. Simmons Bank (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 4-9-322 (a)(2) (Repl. 2020). “Conflicting perfected security interests and agricultural liens rank according to priority in time of filing or perfection.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-322(a)(3) — 1 case
Mouton v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp. (In re Mouton), 479 B.R. 55 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2012). “” Ark.Code Ann. § 4-9-322(a)(3) (Michie 1991); 810 Ill.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-322(a)(l) — 1 case
Searcy Farm Supply, LLC v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 256 S.W.3d 496 (Ark. 2007). “Specifically, Appellants contend that the circuit court erroneously interpreted Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-322 (Repl. 2001) because, they maintain, its PMSI followed the crop, including the proceeds from the sale of the crop, and took priority over the Bank’s lien.”
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.