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

O.C.G.A. § 11-9-318 (2019)

No interest retained in right to payment that is sold; rights and title of seller of account or chattel paper with respect to creditors and purchasers

✓ 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) Seller retains no interest. A debtor that has sold an account, chattel paper, payment intangible, or promissory note does not retain a legal or equitable interest in the collateral sold. (b) Deemed rights of debtor if buyer’s security interest unperfected. For purposes of determining the rights of creditors of, and purchasers for value of an account or chattel paper from, a debtor that has sold an account or chattel paper, while the buyer’s security interest is unperfected, the debtor is deemed to have rights and title to the account or chattel paper identical to those the debtor sold.

History

Code 1981, § 11-9-318, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. For annual survey on commercial law, see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 153 (2001).

RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9318.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1986–2014 · leading case: Brock v. Douglas Kohoutek, L.P., 483 S.E.2d 342 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brock v. Douglas Kohoutek, L.P., 483 S.E.2d 342 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 8× “Kohoutek claimed the reductions diminished the value of its collateral and were not commercially reasonable or made in good faith, and were therefore prohibited by both its security agreement and OCGA § 11-9-318 (2). This statute provides that when the right to payment under an…”
Fulton Cnty. v. Am. Factors of Nashville, Inc., 551 S.E.2d 781 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 14× “OCGA § 11-9-318 (3) provides, in part: “The account debtor is authorized to pay the assignor until the account debtor receives notification that the amount due or to become due has been assigned and that payment is to be made to the assignee.”
Mail Concepts, Inc. v. Foote & Davies, Inc., 409 S.E.2d 567 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “Alternatively, appellant maintains that OCGA § 11-9-318 (4), which bars contract terms that prohibit assignment of accounts or require the account debtor's consent to assignment, applies to void the non-assignment clause at issue. We do not agree, for OCGA § 11-9-104 (e)…”
CGU Life Ins. v. Singer Asset Fin. Co., 553 S.E.2d 8 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Article 9 of the UCC, as codified in Georgia at OCGA § 11-9-318 (4), bars any attempt to restrict the free alienation of property, including the rights to receive structured settlement payments.”
Gwinnett Cmty. Bank v. Arlington Capital, LLC, 757 S.E.2d 239 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “See also OCGA § 11-9-318 (a) (“A debtor that has sold an account, chattel paper, payment intangible, or promissory note does not retain a legal or equitable interest in the collateral sold.”
Presidential Fin. Corp. v. Francis A. Bonanno, Inc., 535 S.E.2d 809 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “[a]ll the terms of a contract between the account debtor and assignor and any defense or claim arising therefrom.”
United Parcel Serv., Inc., Etc. v. Weben Indus., Inc., & Conveyor, Mach. & Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Mercantile Nat'l Bank at Dallas, 794 F.2d 1005 (5th Cir. 1986). “5 (1980); Ga. Code Ann. § 11-9-318 . Consequently, in order to evaluate the Bank’s entitlement to the interpleaded fund, we must examine the construction contract between Weben and UPS.”
JCS Enter., Inc. v. Vanliner Ins., 489 S.E.2d 95 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 11-9-318 (3), however, requires only “notification,” which under OCGA § 11-1-201 (27) is effective upon an organization no later than “when [notification] would have been brought to [the individual conducting the transaction’s] attention if the organization had exercised…”
Allstate Fin. Corp. v. Dundee Mills, Inc., 800 F.2d 1073 (11th Cir. 1986). · cites it 3× “On September 13,1983, Allstate gave written notice to Dundee, pursuant to the security agreement and O.C.G.A. § 11-9-318 (1982), of the assignment and its security interest in Bleckley’s accounts receivable.”
Kerr v. Com. Credit Grp., Inc. (In Re Siskey Hauling Co.), 456 B.R. 597 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2011). “FleetOne cites to Georgia law providing that a seller of accounts receivable retains no interest in the accounts, even if the sale provides for the buyer to retain a security interest in the seller’s accounts receivable.”
Dixie Bonded Warehouse & Grain Co. v. Allstate Fin. Corp., 755 F. Supp. 1543 (M.D. Ga. 1991). “Pursuant to Georgia’s Uniform Commercial Code §§ 11-9-318, et seq., Allstate claimed to be a good faith purchaser with a security interest entitling Allstate to the entire $30,160.”
Gwinnett Cmty. Bank v. Arlington Capital, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “See also OCGA § 11-9-318 (a) (“A debtor that has sold an account, chattel paper, payment intangible, or promissory note does not retain a legal or equitable interest in the collateral sold.”
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.