O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-9-105 (2019)

Control of electronic chattel paper

✓ 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) General rule; control of electronic chattel paper. A secured party has control of electronic chattel paper if a system employed for evidencing the transfer of interests in the chattel paper reliably establishes the secured party as the person to which the chattel paper was assigned.

(b) Specific facts giving control. A system satisfies the provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section if the record or records comprising the chattel paper are created, stored, and assigned in such a manner that:

(1) A single authoritative copy of the record or records exists which is unique, identifiable, and, except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of this subsection, unalterable;

(2) The authoritative copy identifies the secured party as the assignee of the record or records;

(3) The authoritative copy is communicated to and maintained by the secured party or its designated custodian;

(4) Copies or amendments that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy can be made only with the consent of the secured party;

(5) Each copy of the authoritative copy and any copy of a copy is readily identifiable as a copy that is not the authoritative copy; and

(6) Any amendment of the authoritative copy is readily identifiable as authorized or unauthorized.

History

Code 1981, § 11-9-105, enacted by Ga.

L. 2001, p. 362, § 1; Ga. L. 2013, p. 690, § 2/SB 185.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9105.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases, 1983–2008 · leading case: Branan v. Equico Lessors, Inc., 342 S.E.2d 671 (Ga. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Branan v. Equico Lessors, Inc., 342 S.E.2d 671 (Ga. 1986). · cites it 6× “OCGA § 11-9-105 (d) defines “debtor” as “the person who owes payment or other performance of the obligation secured, whether or not he owns or has rights in the collateral, and includes the seller of accounts or chattel paper.”

Reeves v. Habersham Bank, 331 S.E.2d 589 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 4× “Where the debtor and the owner of the collateral are not the same person, the term ‘debtor’ means the owner of the collateral in any provision of the article [Article 9 of Title 11] dealing with the collateral, the obligor in any provision of the article dealing with the…”

Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc. v. Bartow Cnty. Bank, 370 S.E.2d 751 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “The appellant contends that the written documents pursuant to which the defendant-in-garnishment had assigned the certificate of deposit to the bank as collateral for the corporate indebtedness did not give the bank a perfected security interest in the certificate pursuant to…”

United States v. Hooks (In Re Hooks), 40 B.R. 715 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1984). · cites it 4× “Hooks did not therefore become a “debtor,” for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 11-9-105(1)(d) (Michie 1982), under a binding contract until that time.”

Lockett v. State, 460 S.E.2d 857 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 16-13-49(a)(6) defines an "interest holder" as a secured party under OCGA § 11-9-105 or as the beneficiary of a perfected encumbrance pertaining to an interest of the party.”

Kubota Tractor Corp. v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 403 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “A “security agreement” is an agreement which creates or provides for a security interest (OCGA § 11-9-105 (1)), and is to be interpreted the same as any contract (Anderson, 8 UCC, supra at § 9-203:15).”

In Re Rumker, 184 B.R. 621 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995). · cites it 2× “The terms “instrument” and “chattel paper” are defined at O.C.G.A. § 11-9-105 as a negotiable instrument and a lease of specific goods respectively.”

ITT Fin. Servs. v. Gibson, 372 S.E.2d 468 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “A security agreement is required to create a security interest (OCGA § 11-9-105 (1)), and it is not perfected until it meets the requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code (OCGA § 11-9-201), which includes the necessity of a signed "security agreement which contains a…”

Tidwell v. Slocumb (In Re Georgia Steel, Inc.), 71 B.R. 903 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1987). · cites it 2× “In order for this section to apply, the Court must find that C & S Bank authorized a “sale, exchange, or other disposition” of the radio tower by Debtor.”

Wooten v. G.M.H. Auto Sales, Inc., 370 S.E.2d 165 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “” The trial court, citing OCGA § 11-9-105 (1) (b) held that where both the title certificate and the installment sales contract to an individual car were actually delivered to the appellant/Wootens, a “possessory security interest in chattel paper” to secure G.”

Design Spectrum, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank of Atlanta, 355 S.E.2d 733 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Inasmuch as appellant’s checking account is a “deposit account” as that term is defined in Article 9, OCGA § 11-9-105 (1) (e), the strictures of Article 9 were not applicable to appellee’s appropriation of appellant’s account.”

Consol. Equities Corp. v. Bird, 392 S.E.2d 276 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 11-9-105 (1). Appellees urge that Article 9 applies to their transaction with appellant because it was intended that their Partnership interests serve as security for the payment of the notes given by them as part payment for the motel.”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— 11-9-105(1) — 2 cases

First Nat'l Bank v. Alba (In Re Alba), 429 B.R. 353 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2008).

United States v. Wood (In Re Peavy), 28 B.R. 383 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

— 11-9-105(1)(d) — 1 case

United States v. Hooks (In Re Hooks), 40 B.R. 715 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1984). “Hooks did not therefore become a “debtor,” for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 11-9-105(1)(d) (Michie 1982), under a binding contract until that time.”

— 11-9-105(3) — 1 case

Tidwell v. Slocumb (In Re Georgia Steel, Inc.), 71 B.R. 903 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1987). “In order for this section to apply, the Court must find that C & S Bank authorized a “sale, exchange, or other disposition” of the radio tower by Debtor.”

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.