O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-9-104 (2019)

Control of deposit account

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Requirements for control. A secured party has control of a deposit account if: (1) The secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained; (2) The debtor, secured party, and bank have agreed in an authenticated record that the bank will comply with instructions originated by the secured party directing disposition of the funds in the deposit account without further consent by the debtor; or (3) The secured party becomes the bank’s customer with respect to the deposit account. (b) Debtor’s right to direct disposition. A secured party that has satisfied subsection (a) of this Code section has control, even if the debtor retains the right to direct the disposition of funds from the deposit account.

History

Code 1981, § 11-9-104, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9104.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1983–2013 · leading case: McAllister Towing v. Ambassador Factors, Div. Fleet Factors Corp. (In Re Topgallant Lines, Inc.), 154 B.R. 368 (S.D. Ga. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McAllister Towing v. Ambassador Factors, Div. Fleet Factors Corp. (In Re Topgallant Lines, Inc.), 154 B.R. 368 (S.D. Ga. 1993). · cites it 9× “Section 11-9-104 are subject to the Code priority rules when they conflict with a Code security interest.”
Bank of Cave Spring v. Gold Kist, Inc., 327 S.E.2d 800 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 5× “” OCGA § 11-9-104 (e). Under this last-cited provision it would appear initially that Morris’ assignment of a portion of the proceeds of his milk accounts, under an ongoing contract with Atlanta Dairies, would come within the exclusion provided by § 11-9-104 (e), and that the…”
Mail Concepts, Inc. v. Foote & Davies, Inc., 409 S.E.2d 567 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “We do not agree, for OCGA § 11-9-104 (e) specifically excludes from Article 9 coverage "a sale of accounts or chattel paper as part of a sale of the business out of which they arose, or an assignment of accounts or chattel paper which is for the purpose of collection only.”
Watts v. MTC Dev., LLC (In re Palisades at West Paces Imaging Ctr., LLC), 501 B.R. 896 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2013). · cites it 2× “The Court has excluded the Debtor’s bank accounts from CIT’s collateral because perfection in a deposit account can only be made by a deposit control agreement executed in accordance with O.C.G.A. §§ 11-9-104, 11-9-314. No evidence of such an agreement has been presented.”
Paulsen Street Investors v. EBCO Gen. Agencies, 481 S.E.2d 246 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 11-9-104 reads, in part, “[t]his article [Secured Transactions] does not apply: .”
Chen v. Profit Sharing Plan of Bohne, 456 S.E.2d 237 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “It is clear that Article 9 does not apply “to the creation or transfer of an interest in or lien on real estate. . . .” OCGA § 11-9-104 (h). However, the transaction between Chen and the Profit Sharing Plan does not involve the “creation” or “transfer” of an instrument involving…”
Wright v. C & S Fam. Credit, Inc. (In Re Wright), 128 B.R. 838 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1991). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-104(h). *844 Further, the provisions of the security deed state that the right of C & S to collect rents and profits arises only upon Debtor’s default.”
Matter of May, 169 B.R. 462 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1994). · cites it 2× “1 As set out above, California Federal properly recorded the Security Deed and Assignment on October 17, 1991. Thus, California Federal has, under Georgia law, a valid, perfected interest in the Hunters Green rents.”
SGE Mortg. Funding Corp. v. Accent Mortg. Servs., Inc. (In Re SGE Mortg. Funding Corp.), 278 B.R. 653 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2001). · cites it 3× “” O.C.G.A. § 11-9-104(h). The fact that the assignments were or were not recorded has no bearing on perfection.”
Design Spectrum, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank of Atlanta, 355 S.E.2d 733 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× ““OCGA § 11-9-104 (j) clearly provides that the secured transactions chapter [Article 9] does not apply to a transfer of an interest in any deposit account.”
Breitzman v. Heritage Bank, 348 S.E.2d 713 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 11-9-104 (h). See also OCGA § 11-9-501 (4).”
Ashburn Bank v. Farr, 426 S.E.2d 63 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 11-9-104 (a). Under OCGA § 11-9-307 (1), “[a] buyer in ordinary course of business (subsection (9) of Code Section 11-1-201) other than a person buying farm products from a person engaged in farming operations takes free of a security interest created by his seller…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— 11-9-104(a) — 1 case
McAllister Towing v. Ambassador Factors, Div. Fleet Factors Corp. (In Re Topgallant Lines, Inc.), 154 B.R. 368 (S.D. Ga. 1993). “Section 11-9-104 are subject to the Code priority rules when they conflict with a Code security interest.”
— 11-9-104(b) — 1 case
McAllister Towing v. Ambassador Factors, Div. Fleet Factors Corp. (In Re Topgallant Lines, Inc.), 154 B.R. 368 (S.D. Ga. 1993). “Section 11-9-104 are subject to the Code priority rules when they conflict with a Code security interest.”
— 11-9-104(g) — 1 case
McAllister Towing v. Ambassador Factors, Div. Fleet Factors Corp. (In Re Topgallant Lines, Inc.), 154 B.R. 368 (S.D. Ga. 1993). “Section 11-9-104 are subject to the Code priority rules when they conflict with a Code security interest.”
— 11-9-104(h) — 4 cases
Wright v. C & S Fam. Credit, Inc. (In Re Wright), 128 B.R. 838 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1991). “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-104(h). *844 Further, the provisions of the security deed state that the right of C & S to collect rents and profits arises only upon Debtor’s default.”
Matter of May, 169 B.R. 462 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1994). “1 As set out above, California Federal properly recorded the Security Deed and Assignment on October 17, 1991. Thus, California Federal has, under Georgia law, a valid, perfected interest in the Hunters Green rents.”
SGE Mortg. Funding Corp. v. Accent Mortg. Servs., Inc. (In Re SGE Mortg. Funding Corp.), 278 B.R. 653 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2001). “” O.C.G.A. § 11-9-104(h). The fact that the assignments were or were not recorded has no bearing on perfection.”
United States v. Wood (In Re Peavy), 28 B.R. 383 (N.D. Ga. 1983).
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.