Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-502 (2026)
Contents of financing statement — Record of mortgage as financing statement — Time of filing financing statement
-
Subject to subsection (b), a financing statement is sufficient only if it:
- provides the name of the debtor;
- provides the name of the secured party or a representative of the secured party; and
- indicates the collateral covered by the financing statement.
-
Except as otherwise provided in § 4-9-501(b), to be sufficient, a financing statement that covers as-extracted collateral or timber to be cut, or which is filed as a fixture filing and covers goods that are or are to become fixtures, must satisfy subsection (a) and also:
- indicate that it covers this type of collateral;
- indicate that it is to be filed for record in the real property records;
- provide a description of the real property to which the collateral is related sufficient to give constructive notice of a mortgage under the law of this state if the description were contained in a record of the mortgage of the real property; and
- if the debtor does not have an interest of record in the real property, provide the name of a record owner.
-
A record of a mortgage is effective, from the date of recording, as a financing statement filed as a fixture filing or as a financing statement covering as-extracted collateral or timber to be cut only if:
- the record indicates the goods or accounts that it covers;
- the goods are or are to become fixtures related to the real property described in the record or the collateral is related to the real property described in the record and is as-extracted collateral or timber to be cut;
-
the record satisfies the requirements for a financing statement in this section, but
- the record need not indicate that it is to be filed in the real property records; and
- the record sufficiently provides the name of a debtor who is an individual if it provides the individual name of the debtor or the surname and first personal name of the debtor, even if the debtor is an individual to whom § 4-9-503(a)(4) applies; and
- the record is recorded.
- A financing statement may be filed before a security agreement is made or a security interest otherwise attaches.
History. Acts 2001, No. 1439, § 1; 2013, No. 138, § 15.
Amendments. The 2013 amendment rewrote (c)(3).
Case Notes
Description of Collateral.
Security agreements and financing statements establishing liens on growing crops which identified the subject of the liens as “7 acres of cotton and 53 acres of soybeans” to be produced on the lands of certain owners and similar designations of crops to be grown on other lands without describing the lands except by reference to the owners thereof, without specifying whether the debtor would grow exactly the specified acreage of specific crops, and whether or not there would be others growing similar crops on such lands, were insufficient to identify the subject of the security agreements. Piggott State Bank v. Pollard Gin Co., 243 Ark. 159, 419 S.W.2d 120 (1967) (decision under prior law).
A trial court erred in ruling that a description of the subject of a security agreement as “Company owned inventory of” and giving the name and address of the company was insufficient as a matter of law. Security Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hlass, 246 Ark. 1113, 441 S.W.2d 91 (1969) (decision under prior law).
This section and former § 4-9-203 clearly require some type of a description of the land concerned, and where the description in a combined financing statement and security agreement on crops contained an accurate legal description of certain farm lands but omitted other parcels of land on which the borrower planted crops, was insufficient as to the real estate not described. People's Bank v. Pioneer Food Indus., Inc., 253 Ark. 277, 486 S.W.2d 24 (1972) (decision under prior law).
Where the only land description was the statement that the property would be located at the Greenway Elevator Company at Greenway, Arkansas, which was identified only by a post office box number, the description was insufficient, to meet Uniform Commercial Code requirements for descriptions of real estate. Corning Bank v. Bank of Rector, 265 Ark. 68, 576 S.W.2d 949 (1979) (decision under prior law).
Nothing in the statutes or case law indicates that a full legal description of real estate is required in a financing statement covering crops under the pre-2001 version of this chapter; thus where the information in the financing statement, together with inquiry suggested therein, would enable a stranger to the transaction to identify the crops, the filing of the financing statement perfected the government's security interest in the crops. United States v. Oakley, 483 F. Supp. 762 (E.D. Ark. 1980) (decision under prior law).
Description of collateral in security agreement and financial statement that it included all crops and other plant products planted or growing on the farm of Alois Ledwig of approximately 260 acres located in White County, Arkansas approximately 3½ miles southeast of the town of McRae was a sufficient description of the collateral under the pre-2001 version of this chapter. United States v. Oakley, 483 F. Supp. 762 (E.D. Ark. 1980) (decision under prior law).
Financing statement which neither indicated where equipment could be located nor disclosed the name of the business where equipment was to be used fell short of the minimum requirement for collateral description under the pre-2001 version of this chapter. Womack v. Newman Fixture Co., 27 Ark. App. 117, 766 S.W.2d 949 (1989) (decision under prior law).
Where fixture company claimed that description of collateral contained in bank's financing statement was insufficient to give notice to a third party it was proper under the pre-2001 version of this chapter to consider fixture company's actual knowledge concerning the collateral in determining the sufficiency of the description. Womack v. Newman Fixture Co., 27 Ark. App. 117, 766 S.W.2d 949 (1989) (decision under prior law).
A description that only describes the debtor's name and the county and state where the real estate is located is not a sufficient description. Schieffler v. First Nat'l Bank (In re Peeler), 145 B.R. 973 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1992) (decision under prior law).
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).
Execution of Security Agreement.
Possession of tractor by alleged security party was actually held pursuant to a sale and not a pledge even though a financing statement was filed where no security agreement was executed and alleged secured party did not take possession of the tractor at the time the financing statement was executed. Gibbs v. King, 263 Ark. 338, 564 S.W.2d 515 (1978) (decision under prior law).
Financing Statements.
A financing statement, standing alone, does not create a security interest in the debtor's property under the pre-2001 version of this chapter, but merely serves notice that the named creditor may have such an interest. General Elec. Credit Corp. v. Bankers Com. Corp., 244 Ark. 984, 429 S.W.2d 60 (1968) (decision under prior law).
Where the financing statements identified the debtors by their business trade company names, and not by their individual names, the financing statements did not sufficiently identify the individual debtors under the pre-2001 version of this chapter. In re Wallace, 61 B.R. 54 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1986) (decision under prior law).
Substantial compliance under former § 4-9-402(8) pertains to the formal requisites of a financing statement, not a continuation statement. Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Nat'l Bank of Commerce (In re Hilyard Drilling Co.), 74 B.R. 125 (W.D. Ark. 1986), aff'd, 840 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1988) (decision under prior law).
Statement filed failed significantly to adhere to requirements under the pre-2001 version of this chapter for continuation of its priority based upon prior statement. Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Nat'l Bank of Commerce (In re Hilyard Drilling Co.), 74 B.R. 125 (W.D. Ark. 1986), aff'd, 840 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1988) (decision under prior law).
When a debtor's name is incorrectly listed on a financial statement, the test under the pre-2001 version of this chapter is whether a reasonable search under the debtor's true name would reveal the filing, and if so, then the person searching is on notice to inquire further to discover the debtor's correct identity. Heckathorn Constr. Co. v. Bass Mechanical Contractors, 84 B.R. 1009 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1988) (decision under prior law).
The determination of whether financing statements are seriously misleading is a question of fact which must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Heckathorn Constr. Co. v. Bass Mechanical Contractors, 84 B.R. 1009 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1988) (decision under prior law).
Financing statement held not to substantially comply with the requirements for a continuation statement under the pre-2001 version of this chapter. Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Hilyard Drilling Co., 840 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1988) (decision under prior law).
Future Advances.
Where a bank loaned money with a financing statement and chattel mortgage covering future advances being filed, and subsequently others loaned debtor money acquiring liens, the bank had first priority when the debtor failed to meet payments and its property had to be sold, notwithstanding the debtor had payed off the first loan to bank, since it never was out of debt to bank. Associated Bus. Inv. Corp. v. First Nat'l Bank, 264 Ark. 611, 573 S.W.2d 328 (1978) (decision under prior law).
Requirements.
Court erred in awarding judgment to defendant in plaintiff's action for a determination of entitlement to proceeds of a foreclosure sale because defendant's financing statement was only signed by one of the two individual debtors, in violation of former § 4-9-402(1), despite the fact that both debtors held a personal interest in the five pieces of equipment. Farm Credit Midsouth, PCA v. Reece Contr., Inc., 359 Ark. 267, 196 S.W.3d 488 (2004).
Cited: In re King Furn. City, Inc., 240 F. Supp. 453 (E.D. Ark. 1965); Thompson v. United States, 408 F.2d 1075 (8th Cir. 1969); In re B. Hollis Knight Co., 605 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1979); United States v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 504 F. Supp. 1258 (E.D. Ark. 1981); Findley Mach. Co. v. Miller, 3 Ark. App. 264, 625 S.W.2d 542 (1981); Davidson v. Lonoke Prod. Credit Ass'n, 695 F.2d 1115 (8th Cir. 1982); United States v. Davidson, 14 Ark. App. 194, 686 S.W.2d 455 (1985); Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Hilyard Drilling Co., 60 B.R. 500 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1986) (decisions under prior law).