O.C.G.A.
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.
A security interest arising under Code Section 11-2-401 or 11-2-505, subsection (3) of Code Section 11-2-711, or subsection (5) of Code Section 11-2A-508 is subject to this article. However, until the debtor obtains possession of the goods: (1) The security interest is enforceable, even if paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of Code Section 11-9-203 has not been satisfied; (2) Filing is not required to perfect the security interest; (3) The rights of the secured party after default by the debtor are governed by Article 2 or 2A of this title; and (4) The security interest has priority over a conflicting security interest created by the debtor.
History
Code 1981, § 11-9-110, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Perfected security interest had priority over attempted reservation of title. - Peanut growers’ attempted reservation of title when the growers’ delivered peanuts to a peanut company at a peanut broker’s direction amounted to a security interest; however, the growers never perfected the growers’ security interests. A
cooperative bank’s security interest in the peanuts was perfected as the grower had filed financing statements and the security interest had attached so that the bank’s perfected security interest had priority over the growers’ unperfected security interests. Farm Credit of Northwest Fla., ACA v. Easom Peanut Co., 312 Ga.
App. 374, 718 S.E.2d 590, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 817 (2011), cert. denied, No. S12C0444, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 315 (Ga. Mar. 19, 2012). Term “possession” as used in O.C.G.A. § 11-9-110 includes constructive possession. - Farm Credit of
Northwest Fla., ACA v. Easom Peanut Co., 312 Ga. App. 374, 718 S.E.2d 590, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 817 (2011), cert. denied, No. S12C0444, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 315 (Ga. Mar. 19, 2012).
RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9110.
Notes of Decisions
Farm Credit of Nw. Florida v. Easom Peanut Co., 718 S.E.2d 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 6× “Under OCGA § 11-9-110 and Fla. Stat. § 679.1101 , the growers, as sellers, retained a reservation of a security interest in the peanuts.”
ITT Fin. Servs. v. Gibson, 372 S.E.2d 468 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 12× “The trial court found that "plaintiff's financing statement of October 22, 1986, is insufficient under OCGA § 11-9-110 and is thus fatally defective in its effort to describe the boat, motor and trailer," and denied ITT's petition for a writ of possession.”
Mull v. Mickey's Lumber & Supply Co., 461 S.E.2d 270 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “692 (1) ( 275 SE2d 686 ); see also OCGA § 11-9-110. If the description meets this basic test, the lien is not rendered unenforceable.”
Farmers &c. Bank of Trenton v. State, 306 S.E.2d 11 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “110, which is part of the Uniform Commercial Code and substantially the same as OCGA § 11-9-110 (Code Ann. § 109A-9 — 110).”
Mason v. Rabun Waste, Inc., 330 S.E.2d 400 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 11-9-110. We therefore agree with the trial court that the terms of the agreement, including the terms to be contained in the covenant and security agreement, are definite, certain and enforceable.”
Lehigh Press, Inc. v. Nat'l Bank, 389 S.E.2d 376 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 11-9-110. We find that the phrase “all personal *891 property” “fails to indicate the types or describe the items of collateral in which a security interest was taken.”
Trust Co. Bank v. Walker (In Re Walker), 35 B.R. 237 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1983).
“…Code Ga.Ann. § ll-9-302(l)(e) (1983). 7 . Official Code Ga.Ann. § 11-9-402(1) (1983). 8 . Official Code Ga.Ann. § 11-9-110 (1983).”
Matter of Coody, 59 B.R. 164 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1986).
· cites it 8× “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-110 (Michie 1982). Several courts addressing the issue of the sufficiency of a description of growing crops under this section have upheld descriptions listing the name of the landowner, the approximate number of acres involved, the county, and the direction and…”
Goodin v. South Atl. Prod. Credit Ass'n, 410 S.E.2d 159 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “264, 268 (2) ( 228 SE2d 181 ) (1976) (construing OCGA § 11-9-110). The description in appellee’s financing statement was clearly sufficient to raise a “warning flag” as to the “tractors, tilling and har *37 vesting tools of every kind and description owned by the Debtors.”
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.