Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 11-9-201 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 11-9-201 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 11-9-201

TITLE 11 COMMERCIAL CODE

Section 9. Secured Transactions, 11-9-101 through 11-9-809.

ARTICLE 9 SECURED TRANSACTIONS

PART 1 EFFECTIVENESS AND ATTACHMENT

11-9-201. General effectiveness of security agreement.

  1. General effectiveness. Except as otherwise provided in this title, a security agreement is effective according to its terms between the parties, against purchasers of the collateral, and against creditors.
  2. Applicable consumer laws and other law. A transaction subject to this article is subject to any applicable rule of law which establishes a different rule for consumers and is subject to Chapter 3 of Title 7; Chapter 4 of Title 7; and Article 1 of Chapter 1 of Title 10.
  3. Other applicable law controls. In case of conflict between this article and a rule of law, statute, or regulation described in subsection (b) of this Code section, the rule of law, statute, or regulation controls. Failure to comply with a statute or regulation described in subsection (b) of this Code section has only the effect the statute or regulation specifies.
  4. Further deference to other applicable law. This article does not:
    1. Validate any rate, charge, agreement, or practice that violates a rule of law, statute, or regulation described in subsection (b) of this Code section; or
    2. Extend the application of the rule of law, statute, or regulation to a transaction not otherwise subject to it.

(Code 1981, §11-9-201, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In the light of the similarity of the provisions, decisions under former Article 9 are included in the annotations for this Code section. For a table of comparable provisions, see the table at the beginning of the Article.

Effect of section on priority.

- The effect of this section is to give the UCC Article 9 secured party, upon a debtor's default, priority over "anyone, anywhere, anyhow" except as otherwise provided by the remaining Code priority rules. Continental Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 251 Ga. 412, 306 S.E.2d 285 (1983) (decided under former Code Section11-9-201).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 68A Am. Jur. 2d, Secured Transactions, § 155 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 72 C.J.S., Pledges, §§ 19, 31.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9-201.

ALR.

- Provision in land contract against removal of buildings as affecting rights of third person under chattel mortgage or conditional sale, 30 A.L.R. 542.

Rights and remedies of one to whom bank agrees to furnish collateral security, where bank fails before doing so, 122 A.L.R. 266.

Conditional sale as affecting provision in insurance policy against change of title, interest, or possession, 133 A.L.R. 785.

Usury as affecting conditional sale contract, 152 A.L.R. 598.

Effect of UCC Article 9 upon conflict, as to funds in debtor's bank account, between secured creditor and bank claiming right of setoff, 3 A.L.R.4th 998.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 11-9-201

Total Results: 2  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Cont'l Am. Life Ins. v. Griffin, 306 S.E.2d 285 (Ga. 1983).

Cited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 8, 1983 | 251 Ga. 412, 36 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1737

...At the outset we acknowledge there is no specific priority rule that deals directly with the conflict between Griffin's security interest and Continental's set-off rights. Nonetheless, underlying the complex Code priority provisions is the keystone rule of OCGA § 11-9-201 (Code Ann....
...Summers, Handbook of the Law Under the Uniform Commercial Code (1972) at 901. Continental, as a creditor of Greenberg, falls within the ambit of this section. There being nothing else in the Code to resolve the priority conflict between Griffin and Continental, section 11-9-201 is controlling....
Copy

Crossroads Bank of Georgia v. Corim, Inc., 418 S.E.2d 601 (Ga. 1992).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 16, 1992 | 262 Ga. 364, 18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 643, 92 Fulton County D. Rep. 1414

...This case is before us pursuant to the grant of a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. See Corim, Inc. v. Belvin, 202 Ga. App. 396 (414 SE2d 491) (1991). The Court of Appeals determined that the preference for purchase money security interests reflected in the Uniform Commercial Code (OCGA § 11-9-201 et seq.) was not applicable in this case and held that Corim's 1986 properly recorded judgment lien against the debtor had priority over Crossroads' 1989 perfected purchase money security interest....