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) Applicability of Code section. This Code section applies to goods covered by a certificate of title, even if there is no other relationship between the jurisdiction under whose certificate of title the goods are covered and the goods or the debtor. (b) When goods covered by certificate of title. Goods become covered by a certificate of title when a valid application for the certificate of title and the applicable fee are delivered to the appropriate authority. Goods cease to be covered by a certificate of title at the earlier of the time the certificate of title ceases to be effective under the law of the issuing jurisdiction or the time the goods become covered subsequently by a certificate of title issued by another jurisdiction. (c) Applicable law. The local law of the jurisdiction under whose certificate of title the goods are covered governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in goods covered by a certificate of title from the time the goods become covered by the certificate of title until the goods cease to be covered by the certificate of title.
History
Code 1981, § 11-9-303, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1.
Annotations
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. Security interest in car, perfected in another state. - Where creditor of car owner had perfected security interest in the car, and name of creditor as holder of security interest was shown on existing certificate of title issued by jurisdiction where car was located when security in-
terest attached, creditors security interest perfected in North Carolina continued perfected in Georgia, and was valid against subsequent transferees. United Carolina Bank v. Sistrunk, 158 Ga. App. 107, 279 S.E.2d 272, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2097 (1981) (decided under former Article 9). Applying Canadian law to the facts of the case, a remote purchaser could not prevail over a creditor who had perfected its purchase money security interest in a truck within the time specified by Cana-
dian law. Paccar Fin. Servs., Ltd. v. Johnson, 195 Ga. App. 412, 393 S.E.2d 685,
1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 525 (1990) (decided under former Article 9).
RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9303. ALR. Choice of State Law Governing Perfec-
tion of Security Interest or Agricultural Lien Under Revised Article 9 of Uniform Commercial Code, 39 A.L.R.7th Art. 3
Notes of Decisions
Metzger v. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc., 615 S.E.2d 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 16× “However, Americredit contends that two additional statutes foundin Georgia’s Uniform Commercial Code, OCGA§§ 11-9-303 and 11-9-316, indicate that Metzger took the vehicle subject to the security interest.”
Tidwell v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (In Re Georgia Steel, Inc.), 56 B.R. 509 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1985).
· cites it 2× “§ 547 (b) (West 1979). 12 . The Georgia Code provides that "[a] security interest is perfected when it has attached and when all of the applicable steps required for perfection have been taken_” O.”
Almand v. Reynolds & Robin, P.C., 485 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (M.D. Ga. 2007).
· cites it 2× “The portion of the Georgia Code that instructs what must be done to obtain a title on a vehicle purchased with a loan, O.C.G.”
Kubota Tractor Corp. v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 403 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Anderson, 9 UCC, supra at § 9-403:13; see OCGA § 11-9-303 (1). 3. Appellant asserts C & S does not have a valid security interest in the subject collateral because neither the C & S financing statement nor the security agreement contained an after-acquired property clause.”
First Am. Bank & Trust Co. of Athens v. Harris (In Re Stewart), 74 B.R. 350 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1987).
· cites it 6× “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-303(1) (1982). A security interest attaches when: (a) The collateral is in the possession of the secured party pursuant to agreement, or the debtor has signed a security agreement which contains a description of the collateral and in addition, when the security…”
Whiting-Turner/A.L. Johnson v. P.D.H. Dev., Inc., 184 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (M.D. Ga. 2000).
· cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-303(1). Applying these principles to this case, the debtor, PDH, signed several security agreements which granted the secured party, Athens First, a security interest in the collateral described, in part, as “All Accounts Receivable, .”
Provident Bank v. Morequity, Inc., 585 S.E.2d 625 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Although under the UCC a security interest may be perfected (see generally former OCGA § 11-9-303), nothing in the Code “limits the rights of a holder in due course of a negotiable instrument .”
Matter of Coody, 59 B.R. 164 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1986).
· cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. §§ 11-9-303(1), 11-9-302(1) (Michie 1982).”
— 11-9-303(1) — 4 cases
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. § 11-9-303(1) (1982). A security interest attaches when: (a) The collateral is in the possession of the secured party pursuant to agreement, or the debtor has signed a security agreement which contains a description of the collateral and in addition, when the security…”
Whiting-Turner/A.L. Johnson v. P.D.H. Dev., Inc., 184 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (M.D. Ga. 2000).
“O.C.G.A. § 11-9-303(1). Applying these principles to this case, the debtor, PDH, signed several security agreements which granted the secured party, Athens First, a security interest in the collateral described, in part, as “All Accounts Receivable, .”
Matter of Coody, 59 B.R. 164 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1986).
“O.C.G.A. §§ 11-9-303(1), 11-9-302(1) (Michie 1982).”
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.