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

O.C.G.A. § 11-9-301 (2019)

Law governing perfection and priority of security interests

✓ 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

Except as otherwise provided in Code Sections 11-9-303 through 11-9-306, 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 Code 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 paragraph (4) of this Code section, while tangible negotiable documents, goods, instruments, money, or tangible chattel paper 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; (C) Perfection of a security interest in crops; and (D) The effect of perfection or nonperfection and the priority of a nonpossessory security interest in the collateral; and

(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.

History

Code 1981, § 11-9-301, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1; Ga. L. 2010, p. 481, § 2-23/HB 451.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2010, p. 481, § 3-1/HB 451, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: “This Act applies to a document of title that is issued or a bailment that arises on or after the effective date of this Act. This Act does not apply to a document of title that is issued or a bailment that arises before the effective date of this Act even if the document of title or bailment would be subject to this Act if the document of title had been issued or bailment had arisen on or after the effective

date of this Act. This Act does not apply to a right of action that has accrued before the effective date of this Act.” This Act became effective May 27, 2010. Ga. L. 2010, p. 481, § 3-2/HB 451, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: “A document of title issued or a bailment that arises before the effective date of this Act and the rights, documents, and interests flowing from that document or bailment are governed by any statute or other rule amended or repealed by this Act as if such amendment or repeal had not occurred and may be terminated, completed, consummated, or enforced under that statute or other rule.” This Act became effective May 27, 2010.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory 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. Failure to perfect after relocation of debtor. - Since the security interest was not perfected upon transfer of debtor’s corporate offices to Georgia, the security interest was deemed unperfected upon the expiration of four months after the relocation to Georgia. United States v. Specialty Contracting & Supply, Inc., 140

B.R. 922, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 830 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1992) (decided under former Code Section 11-9-103). Transfer of collateral. - Former Code Section 11-9-407(7), not former paragraph (3)(e) of this Code section was applicable when a debtor had transferred collateral encumbered by a security interest to another debtor. NCNB Nat’l Bank v. Major Leasing, Inc., 140 B.R. 826, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 2099 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1991) (decided under former Code Section 11-9-103).

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. 79 C.J.S., Secured Transactions, § 88 et seq.

U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9301.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2022 · leading case: Crossroads Bank of Georgia v. Corim, Inc., 418 S.E.2d 601 (Ga. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crossroads Bank of Georgia v. Corim, Inc., 418 S.E.2d 601 (Ga. 1992). · cites it 16× “OCGA § 11-9-301 (2) provides: If the secured party files with respect to a purchase money security interest before or within 15 days after the debtor re *365 ceives possession of the collateral, he takes priority over the rights of.”
Bank of Cave Spring v. Gold Kist, Inc., 327 S.E.2d 800 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “” Under OCGA § 11-9-301 (3), “[a] ‘lien creditor’ means a creditor who has acquired a lien on the property involved by attachment, levy, or the like .”
Corim, Inc. v. Belvin, 414 S.E.2d 491 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 8× “Appellant also argues that its judgment lien has priority over Crossroads’ purchase money security interest under OCGA § 11-9-310 (1) (d) and that the trial court erred in determining that because the financing statement was timely filed in accordance with OCGA § 11-9-301 (2),…”
First Am. Bank & Trust Co. of Athens v. Harris (In Re Stewart), 74 B.R. 350 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1987). · cites it 9× “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-301(1) (1982). Nicholson v.”
Mitchell v. Ringson, 311 S.E.2d 516 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “See generally OCGA §§ 11-9-301 (Code Ann. § 109A-9—301), 11-9-312 (Code Ann.”
Thomas Mote Trucking, Inc. v. PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., 540 S.E.2d 261 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “According to PCL, the letter was simply a security interest which Thomas Mote Trucking failed to perfect by either possessing the machine or following the requirements of OCGA § 11-9-301. Although Mote and Cummins both testified that they understood Roberts was giving Mote the…”
Matter of Topgallant Lines, Inc., 125 B.R. 682 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1991). · cites it 4× “Section 11-9-301, et seq. are inapplicable in determining the priority of maritime liens vis-a-vis UCC security interests.”
Freeman v. Bentley, 422 S.E.2d 435 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 11-9-301 (1) (c); 11-1-201 (9). “Knowledge of a fact is defined in the Uniform Commerical Code as actual knowledge.”
MacOn-bibb Cnty. Hosp. Auth. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins., 793 F. Supp. 321 (M.D. Ga. 1992). · cites it 2× “Under O.C.G.A. § 11-9-301, an unperfected security interest is subordinate to a prior lien.”
U.S. Cylinders, Inc. v. Vital Breathing Prods., Inc. (In Re Vital Breathing Prods., Inc.), 98 B.R. 97 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1988). · cites it 2× “Section 11-9-301, an unperfected security interest is subordinate to the rights of a hypothetical lien creditor such as a trustee in bankruptcy or a debtor-in-possession.”
First Nat'l v. Blackburn, 329 S.E.2d 897 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 11-9-301. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.”
Ambassador Factors, Div. Fleet Factors Corp. v. First Am. Bulk Carrier Corp. (In re Topgallant Lines, Inc.), 125 B.R. 682 (D. Ga. 1991). · cites it 4× “Section 11-9-301, et seq. are inapplicable in determining the priority of maritime liens vis-a-vis UCC security interests.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— 11-9-301(1) — 1 case
First Am. Bank & Trust Co. of Athens v. Harris (In Re Stewart), 74 B.R. 350 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1987). “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-301(1) (1982). Nicholson v.”
— 11-9-301(3) — 1 case
First Am. Bank & Trust Co. of Athens v. Harris (In Re Stewart), 74 B.R. 350 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1987). “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-301(1) (1982). Nicholson v.”
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.