Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 355
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-312 (2026)

Perfection of security interests in chattel paper, controllable accounts,

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

controllable electronic records, controllable payment intangibles, deposit accounts, negotiable documents, goods covered by documents, instruments, investment property, letter-of-credit rights, and money -- Perfection by permissive filing -- Temporary perfection without filing or transfer of possession.

(1) A security interest in chattel paper, controllable accounts, controllable electronic records, controllable payment intangibles, instruments, investment property, or negotiable documents may be perfected by filing.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in KRS 355.9-315(3) and (4) for proceeds:

(a) A security interest in a deposit account may be perfected only by control under KRS 355.9-314; (b) And except as otherwise provided in KRS 355.9-308(4), a security interest in a letter-of-credit right may be perfected only by control under KRS 355.9- 314;

(c) A security interest in tangible money may be perfected only by the secured party's taking possession under KRS 355.9-313; and

(d) A security interest in electronic money may be perfected only by control under KRS 355.9-314.

(3) While goods are in the possession of a bailee that has issued a negotiable document covering the goods:

(a) A security interest in the goods may be perfected by perfecting a security interest in the document; and

(b) A security interest perfected in the document has priority over any security interest that becomes perfected in the goods by another method during that time.

(4) While goods are in the possession of a bailee that has issued a nonnegotiable document covering the goods, a security interest in the goods may be perfected by:

(a) Issuance of a document in the name of the secured party;

(b) The bailee's receipt of notification of the secured party's interest; or

(c) Filing as to the goods.

(5) A security interest in certificated securities, negotiable documents, or instruments is perfected without filing or the taking of possession or control for a period of twenty

(20) days from the time it attaches to the extent that it arises for new value given under a signed security agreement.

(6) A perfected security interest in a negotiable document or goods in possession of a bailee, other than one that has issued a negotiable document for the goods, remains perfected for twenty (20) days without filing if the secured party makes available to the debtor the goods or documents representing the goods for the purpose of:

(a) Ultimate sale or exchange; or

(b) Loading, unloading, storing, shipping, transshipping, manufacturing, processing, or otherwise dealing with them in a manner preliminary to their sale or exchange.

(7) A perfected security interest in a certificated security or instrument remains perfected for twenty (20) days without filing if the secured party delivers the security certificate or instrument to the debtor for the purpose of:

(a) Ultimate sale or exchange; or

(b) Presentation, collection, enforcement, renewal, or registration of transfer.

(8) After the twenty (20) day period specified in subsection (5), (6), or (7) of this section expires, perfection depends upon compliance with this article. Effective: January 1, 2025 History: Amended 2024 Ky. Acts ch. 10, sec. 62, effective January 1, 2025. -- Amended 2012 Ky. Acts ch. 132, sec. 69, effective July 1, 2013. -- Repealed and reenacted 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 408, sec. 52, effective July 1, 2001. -- Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 130, sec. 178, effective January 1, 1997 -- Amended 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 118, sec. 71, effective July 1, 1987. -- Amended 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 199, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1982. -- Amended 1962 Ky. Acts ch. 83, sec. 8. -- Created 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, sec. 9-312. Legislative Research Commission Note (3/14/2013). 2013 Ky. Acts ch. 10, secs. 2 and 3 provide that the statutes in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code that were amended or created in 2012 Ky. Acts ch. 132, secs. 60 to 99, are effective July 1, 2013. This statute was one of those sections. Since only the effective date of a prior Act was altered, and not the text of the affected statutes, reference to 2013 Ky. Acts ch. 10 does not appear in the history for this statute. Legislative Research Commission Note (7/12/2012). In 2010, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute proposed a Uniform Act for adoption by the states that contained revisions to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The effective date for all proposed Article 9 revisions was to be July 1, 2013. Those revisions were enacted in 2012 Ky. Acts Chapter 132, Sections 60 to 99. Sections 60 to 90 contained the substantive Article 9 revisions, and Sections 91 to 99 contained the transitional Article 9 revisions created to handle secured transactions made prior to July 1, 2013. Section 91 of that Act (codified as KRS 355.9-801) and Section 102 of that Act (a noncodified effective date provision) both stated, "Sections 91 to 99 of this Act take effect July 1, 2013." The normal effective date for legislation enacted at the 2012 Regular Session of the General Assembly is July 12, 2012. In Opinion of the Attorney General 12-010, issued July 3, 2012, Section 91 (codified as KRS 355.9-801) was determined to have contained a manifest clerical error, and should have instead read, "Sections 60 to 90 of this Act take effect July 1, 2013," thereby making the substantive Article 9 revisions effective on the same date as the transitional Article 9 provisions in conformity with the 2010 Uniform Act proposal and 2012 Ky. Acts Chapter 132, Section 102. This statute was one of the substantive provisions of Article 9 contained in 2012 Ky. Acts Chapter 132, Sections 60 to 90.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2022 · leading case: Walker v. West Kentucky Prod. Credit Ass'n (In Re Rogers), 39 B.R. 295 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Walker v. West Kentucky Prod. Credit Ass'n (In Re Rogers), 39 B.R. 295 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1984). · cites it 13× “PCA challenges Hancock’s claim of priority by asserting that the requisite elements of KRS 355.9-312(2) have not been proved. Specifically, PCA contends that KRS 355.”
Harris Trust & Sav. Bank v. Wathen's Elevators, Inc. (In Re Wathen's Elevators, Inc.), 32 B.R. 912 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1983). · cites it 2× “KRS 355.9-312. 26 . See note 19 supra. 27 .”
United States v. Truitt (In Re Ivy), 37 B.R. 285 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 1983). · cites it 7× “Case Credit Corporation perfected its purchase-money security interest in certain collateral within ten days after the debtors received possession of that collateral as required by the version of KRS 355.9-312(4) in effect at the time in question.”
Mammoth Cave Prod. Credit Ass'n v. York, 429 S.W.2d 26 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 3× “However, the code makes special provisions to protect the seller in such situations, KRS 355.9-312 (4), “A purchase money security interest 'in collateral other than inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same collateral if the purchase money security…”
Whayne Supply Co. v. Commonwealth Revenue Cabinet, 925 S.W.2d 185 (Ky. 1996). · cites it 5× “KRS 355.9-312(4) provides: A purchase money security interest in collateral other than inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same collateral or its proceeds if the purchase money security interest is perfected at the time the debtor receives…”
Wells Fargo Bank, Minnesota, N.A. v. Commonwealth, 345 S.W.3d 800 (Ky. 2011). “In Whayne Supply, however, our holding hinged upon the fact that the Kentucky General Assembly had provided a “super-priority” to Article 9 purchase money security interests with the enactment of KRS 355.9-312(4). Yet, there is no specific statute that grants a purchase money…”
Nolin Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Canmer Deposit Bank, 726 S.W.2d 693 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986). “Moreover, as Pioneer points out, had No-lin PCA chosen to, it could have filed a specific purchase money interest in the cattle it financed, KRS 355.9-312(4), or approached Pioneer about relinquishing its interest.”
ITT Indus. Credit Co. v. Union Bank & Trust Co., 615 S.W.2d 2 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “” KRS 355.9-204(5) reads, “[obligations covered by a security agreement may include future advances or other value whether or not the advances or value are given pursuant to commitment.”
Strong v. First Nationwide Mortg. Corp., 959 S.W.2d 785 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998). “KRS 355.9-312(5)(a). The judgment of the Laurel Circuit Court is affirmed in part, and reversed in part and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.”
Delphi Auto. Sys., LLC v. Capital Cmty. Econ./Indus. Dev. Corp., 434 S.W.3d 481 (Ky. 2014). “9-310(1) states that except as provided in subsection (2) of that statute and KRS 355.9-312(2), “a financing statement must be filed to perfect all security interests.”
In Re Megamarket of Lexington, Inc., 207 B.R. 527 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 1997). “9-306) and priorities in proceeds (KRS 355.9-312).... One treatise on the Uniform Commercial Code discusses the applicability of section 9-104(g) to insurance premium refunds: One question that has arisen is the extent to which the exclusion should apply to insurance premium…”
Ralph v. Stock Yards Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Kentuckiana Truck & Trailer Repair, Inc.), 291 B.R. 84 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2002). · cites it 2× “See KRS 355.9-312(5)(a). Clearly, SYB filed its UCC-1 first and filed a timely UCC-3 continuation statement on December 22,1999.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-312(2) — 3 cases
Walker v. West Kentucky Prod. Credit Ass'n (In Re Rogers), 39 B.R. 295 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1984). “PCA challenges Hancock’s claim of priority by asserting that the requisite elements of KRS 355.9-312(2) have not been proved. Specifically, PCA contends that KRS 355.”
Delphi Auto. Sys., LLC v. Capital Cmty. Econ./Indus. Dev. Corp., 434 S.W.3d 481 (Ky. 2014). “9-310(1) states that except as provided in subsection (2) of that statute and KRS 355.9-312(2), “a financing statement must be filed to perfect all security interests.”
United Tobacco Warehouse Co., Inc. v. Wells, 490 S.W.2d 152 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-312(2)(a) — 1 case
Flener v. Alexander (In Re Alexander), 429 B.R. 876 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2010).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-312(4) — 4 cases
United States v. Truitt (In Re Ivy), 37 B.R. 285 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 1983). “Case Credit Corporation perfected its purchase-money security interest in certain collateral within ten days after the debtors received possession of that collateral as required by the version of KRS 355.9-312(4) in effect at the time in question.”
Wells Fargo Bank, Minnesota, N.A. v. Commonwealth, 345 S.W.3d 800 (Ky. 2011). “In Whayne Supply, however, our holding hinged upon the fact that the Kentucky General Assembly had provided a “super-priority” to Article 9 purchase money security interests with the enactment of KRS 355.9-312(4). Yet, there is no specific statute that grants a purchase money…”
Nolin Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Canmer Deposit Bank, 726 S.W.2d 693 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986). “Moreover, as Pioneer points out, had No-lin PCA chosen to, it could have filed a specific purchase money interest in the cattle it financed, KRS 355.9-312(4), or approached Pioneer about relinquishing its interest.”
Whayne Supply Co. v. Commonwealth Revenue Cabinet, 925 S.W.2d 185 (Ky. 1996). “KRS 355.9-312(4) provides: A purchase money security interest in collateral other than inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same collateral or its proceeds if the purchase money security interest is perfected at the time the debtor receives…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-312(5) — 3 cases
Mammoth Cave Prod. Credit Ass'n v. York, 429 S.W.2d 26 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “However, the code makes special provisions to protect the seller in such situations, KRS 355.9-312 (4), “A purchase money security interest 'in collateral other than inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same collateral if the purchase money security…”
ITT Indus. Credit Co. v. Union Bank & Trust Co., 615 S.W.2d 2 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981). “” KRS 355.9-204(5) reads, “[obligations covered by a security agreement may include future advances or other value whether or not the advances or value are given pursuant to commitment.”
Whayne Supply Co. v. Commonwealth Revenue Cabinet, 925 S.W.2d 185 (Ky. 1996). “KRS 355.9-312(4) provides: A purchase money security interest in collateral other than inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same collateral or its proceeds if the purchase money security interest is perfected at the time the debtor receives…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-312(5)(a) — 5 cases
Strong v. First Nationwide Mortg. Corp., 959 S.W.2d 785 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998). “KRS 355.9-312(5)(a). The judgment of the Laurel Circuit Court is affirmed in part, and reversed in part and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.”
In Re Lynum, 246 B.R. 537 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2000).
Hutchison v. C.I.T. Corp., 576 F. Supp. 1 (W.D. Ky. 1982).
Ralph v. Stock Yards Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Kentuckiana Truck & Trailer Repair, Inc.), 291 B.R. 84 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2002). “See KRS 355.9-312(5)(a). Clearly, SYB filed its UCC-1 first and filed a timely UCC-3 continuation statement on December 22,1999.”
Versailles Farm, Home & Garden, LLC v. Harvey Haynes (Ky. 2022).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-312(5)(c) — 1 case
Am. Pulverizer Co. v. Cantrell, 694 S.W.2d 714 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-312(7) — 1 case
Ralph v. Stock Yards Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Kentuckiana Truck & Trailer Repair, Inc.), 291 B.R. 84 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2002). “See KRS 355.9-312(5)(a). Clearly, SYB filed its UCC-1 first and filed a timely UCC-3 continuation statement on December 22,1999.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-312(a)(a) — 1 case
Flener v. Alexander (In Re Alexander), 429 B.R. 876 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2010).
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.