Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-515 (2026)
Duration and effectiveness of financing statement — Effect of lapsed financing statement
- Except as otherwise provided in subsections (b), (e), (f), and (g), a filed financing statement is effective for a period of five (5) years after the date of filing.
- Except as otherwise provided in subsections (e), (f), and (g), an initial financing statement filed in connection with a public-finance transaction or manufactured-home transaction is effective for a period of thirty (30) years after the date of filing if it indicates that it is filed in connection with a public-finance transaction or manufactured-home transaction.
- The effectiveness of a filed financing statement lapses on the expiration of the period of its effectiveness unless before the lapse a continuation statement is filed pursuant to subsection (d). Upon lapse, a financing statement ceases to be effective and any security interest or agricultural lien that was perfected by the financing statement becomes unperfected, unless the security interest is perfected otherwise. If the security interest or agricultural lien becomes unperfected upon lapse, it is deemed never to have been perfected as against a purchaser of the collateral for value.
- A continuation statement may be filed only within six (6) months before the expiration of the five-year period specified in subsection (a) or the thirty-year period specified in subsection (b), whichever is applicable.
- Except as otherwise provided in § 4-9-510, upon timely filing of a continuation statement, the effectiveness of the initial financing statement continues for a period of five (5) years commencing on the day on which the financing statement would have become ineffective in the absence of the filing. Upon the expiration of the five-year period, the financing statement lapses in the same manner as provided in subsection (c), unless, before the lapse, another continuation statement is filed pursuant to subsection (d). Succeeding continuation statements may be filed in the same manner to continue the effectiveness of the initial financing statement.
- If a debtor is a transmitting utility and a filed initial financing statement so indicates, the financing statement is effective until a termination statement is filed.
- A record of a mortgage that is effective as a financing statement filed as a fixture filing under § 4-9-502(c) remains effective as a financing statement filed as a fixture filing until the mortgage is released or satisfied of record or its effectiveness otherwise terminates as to the real property.
History. Acts 2001, No. 1439, § 1; 2013, No. 138, § 18.
Amendments. The 2013 amendment inserted “initial” in (f).
Case Notes
Continuation Statements.
Under former § 4-9-403, there are four basic elements for filing a continuation statement: (1) The continuation statement may be filed within six months prior to the expiration date of the original filing; (2) the continuation statement is to be signed by the secured party; (3) the continuation statement must identify the original statement by file number; and (4) the continuation statement must state that the original statement is still effective. 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).
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, it was not a continuation statement under former § 4-9-403, 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).
Where a continuation statement meets all of the requirements under former § 4-9-403, except the original document number was misstated by one number, the defect is not seriously misleading and is sufficient compliance with former § 4-9-403 to render the filing effective. Vincent Gaines Implement Co. v. United States, 71 B.R. 14 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1986) (decision under prior law).
Finding under former § 4-9-403 that financing statement and continuation statement are separate documents which cannot be substituted for one another is not clearly erroneous. 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).
To interpret former § 4-9-303(2) as providing that a security interest can be continuously perfected by consecutively filed financing statements contradicts the express language of former § 4-9-403(2). Former 4-9-303(2) is applicable to security interests that are originally perfected in one way and then subsequently perfected in some other way, without an intermediate unperfected period. Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Hilyard Drilling Co., 840 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1988) (decision under prior law).
Financing statement held not to substantially comply with the requirements for a continuation statement under former § 4-9-403. Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Hilyard Drilling Co., 840 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1988) (decision under prior law).
Duration of Filing.
By virtue of the limitation period, a creditor did not have a perfected security interest under former § 4-9-403 in either an automobile or chattel paper after the expiration of the statutory period from the date the last financing statement was filed by the creditor. Commercial Credit Corp. v. National Credit Corp., 251 Ark. 702, 473 S.W.2d 881 (1971) (decision under prior law).
Where collateral description states that “crops covered hereby are growing or are to be grown on” certain described real property, such language in the financing statement was sufficient to notify third parties that crops grown after that crop year were covered, and it should have reasonably notified third parties that after-acquired property was part of the subject matter of the financing statement and further, that crops growing or to be grown on the real property would be subject to the security interest of the plaintiff for five years under former § 4-9-403, commencing on the date the financing statement was filed. United States v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 504 F. Supp. 1258 (E.D. Ark. 1981) (decision under prior law).
The crops grown each year by a debtor do not constitute separate items or types of collateral coming into existence so as to require designation on a financing statement of the years in which the crops are to be grown, since the time limits on the effectiveness of a financing statement found under former § 4-9-403 reasonably describe the years to which the financing statement, containing an after-acquired property clause dealing with crops, is applicable. United States v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 504 F. Supp. 1258 (E.D. Ark. 1981) (decision under prior law).
Cited: Barnett v. Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp., 488 F. Supp. 786 (E.D. Ark. 1980) (decision under prior law).