O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-9-304 (2019)

Law governing perfection and priority of security interests in deposit accounts

✓ 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) Law of bank’s jurisdiction governs. The local law of a bank’s jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in a deposit account maintained with that bank.

(b) Bank’s jurisdiction. The following rules determine a bank’s jurisdiction for purposes of this part:

(1) If an agreement between the bank and its customer governing the deposit account expressly provides that a particular jurisdiction is the bank’s jurisdiction for purposes of this part, this article, or this title, that jurisdiction is the bank’s jurisdiction;

(2) If paragraph (1) of this subsection does not apply and an agreement between the bank and its customer governing the deposit account expressly provides that the agreement is governed by the law of a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is the bank’s jurisdiction;

(3) If neither paragraph (1) nor (2) of this subsection applies and an agreement between the bank and its customer governing the deposit account expressly provides that the deposit account is maintained at an office in a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is the bank’s jurisdiction;

(4) If none of the preceding paragraphs of this subsection applies, the bank’s jurisdiction is the jurisdiction in which the office identified in an account statement as the office serving the customer’s account is located; and

(5) If none of the preceding paragraphs of this subsection applies, the bank’s jurisdiction is the jurisdiction in which the chief executive office of the bank is located.

History

Code 1981, § 11-9-304, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1; Ga. L. 2002, p. 995, § 4.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2002, p. 995, § 8, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: “This Act shall become effective July 1,

2002, and shall apply to a letter of credit that is issued on or after July 1, 2002. This Act does not apply to a transaction, event,

obligation, or duty arising out of or associated with a letter of credit that was issued before July 1, 2002.”

RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9304.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1983–1988 · leading case: Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc. v. Bartow Cnty. Bank, 370 S.E.2d 751 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc. v. Bartow Cnty. Bank, 370 S.E.2d 751 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “On motion for rehearing, the bank contends that, notwithstanding the inapplicability of Article 9 of the UCC to the certificate of deposit itself, it acquired a perfected security interest in the interest checks pursuant to OCGA §§ 11-9-304 (1) and 11-9-305 by retaining…”
Dixie Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Kent, 307 S.E.2d 277 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Indeed, OCGA §§ 11-9-304 (1) (Code Ann. § 109A-9—304) and 11-9-306 (3) (Code Ann.”
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.