Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-201 (2026)

General effectiveness of security agreement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a security agreement is effective according to its terms between the parties, against purchasers of the collateral, and against creditors.

(2) A transaction subject to this article is subject to any applicable rule of law, statute, or regulation that establishes a different rule for consumers.

(3) In case of conflict between this article and a rule of law, statute, or regulation described in subsection (2) of this section, the rule of law, statute, or regulation controls. Failure to comply with a statute or regulation described in subsection (2) of this section has only the effect the statute or regulation specifies.

(4) This article does not:

(a) Validate any rate, charge, agreement, or practice that violates a rule of law, statute, or regulation described in subsection (2) of this section; or

(b) Extend the application of the rule of law, statute, or regulation to a transaction not otherwise subject to it. Effective: July 1, 2001 History: Repealed and reenacted 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 408, sec. 31, effective July 1, 2001. -- Created 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, sec. 9-201, effective July 1, 1960.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Cont'l Can Co. v. Owensboro Canning Co. (In Re Owensboro Canning Co.), 82 B.R. 450 (W.D. Ky. 1988).
Cont'l Can Co. v. Owensboro Canning Co. (In Re Owensboro Canning Co.), 82 B.R. 450 (W.D. Ky. 1988). · cites it 2× “Ky.Rev. Stat. § 355.9-201 (1964). The Code defines “security interest” as “an interest in personal property or fixtures which secures payment or performance of an obligation”; Ky.”
Ranier v. Gilford, 688 S.W.2d 753 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985). “Here, the transfer was unauthorized; it constituted a default; Ranier does not fall under one of the exceptions to KRS 355.9-201 or KRS 355.9-306; Gilford had the right to possession, and could pursue his claim for conversion against Ranier.”
Lb Folding Co. v. Gergel-Kellem Corp., 641 N.E.2d 222 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “If the security agreement is unperfected, however, the agreement is subordinate to the rights of certain specified persons. KRS 355.9-301. Among the persons protected is a purchaser who is not a secured party and who is not a buyer in the ordinary course of business, to the…”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Lincoln Nat'l Bank, 18 S.W.3d 337 (Ky. 2000). · cites it 2× “KRS 355.9-201 5 gives a secured party priority over all others in the collateral or its proceeds, except as provided elsewhere by Article 9.”
Banque Worms v. Davis Const. Co., Inc., 831 S.W.2d 921 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992). “True enough, KRS 355.9-201 states that except as otherwise provided, a security agreement is effective against purchasers of the collateral.”
River City Prods., Inc. v. AEJ, Inc., 774 S.W.2d 452 (Ky. Ct. App. 1989). “KRS 355.9-201 explicitly states that except as otherwise noted, “a security agreement is effective according to its terms between the parties, against purchasers of the collateral and against creditors.”
HBKY, LLC v. Elk River Exp., LLC (E.D. Ky. 2023). · cites it 2× “2022) (quoting Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-201(1)). A security agreement need not include magic words to create a valid security interest.”
HBKY, LLC v. Elk River Exp., LLC (6th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 355.9-201 , 203, 601.”
Versailles Farm, Home & Garden, LLC v. Harvey Haynes (Ky. 2022). “” KRS 355.9-201(1). Attachment and enforceability of a security interest is set out in KRS 355.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-201(1) — 2 cases
HBKY, LLC v. Elk River Exp., LLC (E.D. Ky. 2023). “2022) (quoting Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-201(1)). A security agreement need not include magic words to create a valid security interest.”
Versailles Farm, Home & Garden, LLC v. Harvey Haynes (Ky. 2022). “” KRS 355.9-201(1). Attachment and enforceability of a security interest is set out in KRS 355.”
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.