679.3011
Law governing perfection and priority of security interests.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
679.3011 Law governing perfection and priority of security interests.—Except as otherwise provided in ss. 679.1091 and 679.3031-679.3062, the following rules determine the law governing perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in collateral:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, while a debtor is located in a jurisdiction, the local law of that jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in collateral.
(2) While collateral is located in a jurisdiction, the local law of that jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a possessory security interest in that collateral.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (4) and (5), while tangible negotiable documents, goods, instruments, or tangible money is located in a jurisdiction, the local law of that jurisdiction governs:
(a) Perfection of a security interest in the goods by filing a fixture filing;
(b) Perfection of a security interest in timber to be cut; and
(c) The effect of perfection or nonperfection and the priority of a nonpossessory security interest in the collateral.
(4) The local law of the jurisdiction in which the wellhead or minehead is located governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in as-extracted collateral.
(5) The law of this state governs:
(a) The perfection of a security interest in goods that are or are to become fixtures in this state by the filing of a fixture filing.
(b) The effect of perfection or nonperfection and the priority of a security interest in goods that are or are to become fixtures in this state.
History.—s. 3, ch. 2001-198; s. 5, ch. 2002-242; s. 62, ch. 2010-131; s. 81, ch. 2025-92.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2009–2019 · leading case: Kapila v. Clark Ex Rel. Matthew Wortley Trust (In Re Trafford Distributing Center, Inc.)
Kapila v. Clark Ex Rel. Matthew Wortley Trust (In Re Trafford Distributing Center, Inc.) (2009)
“According to Florida Statutes § 679.3011, adopted as part of Florida’s version of Revised Article 9 to the Uniform Commercial Code, the law of the jurisdiction in which the debtor is located governs the perfection and priority of security interests.”
Baruth v. Stellar Recovery, Inc. (2019)
“§ 4-9-301 (1); Fla. Stat. § 679.3011 (1). Here, the debtor – Stellar – was located in Florida; thus, Florida law governs the questions of priority and perfection in this case.”
In re Tuscany Energy, LLC (2016)
“Florida Statutes § 679.3011, . The Firm also received
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.