Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-507 (2026)

Effect of certain events on effectiveness of financing statement

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) A filed financing statement remains effective with respect to collateral that is sold, exchanged, leased, licensed, or otherwise disposed of and in which a security interest or agricultural lien continues, even if the secured party knows of or consents to the disposition.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section and KRS 355.9-508, a financing statement is not rendered ineffective if, after the financing statement is filed, the information provided in the financing statement becomes seriously misleading under KRS 355.9-506.

(3) If the name that a filed financing statement provides for a debtor becomes insufficient as the name of the debtor under KRS 355.9-503(1) so that the financing statement becomes seriously misleading under KRS 355.9-506:

(a) The financing statement is effective to perfect a security interest in collateral acquired by the debtor before, or within four (4) months after, the filed financing statement becomes seriously misleading; and

(b) The financing statement is not effective to perfect a security interest in collateral acquired by the debtor more than four (4) months after the filed financing statement becomes seriously misleading, unless an amendment to the financing statement which renders the financing statement not seriously misleading is filed within four (4) months after the filed financing statement becomes seriously misleading. Effective: July 1, 2013 History: Amended 2012 Ky. Acts ch. 132, sec. 80, effective July 1, 2013. -- Amended 2001 Ky. Acts ch. 65, sec. 2, effective July 1, 2001. -- Repealed and reenacted 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 408, sec. 98, effective July 1, 2001. -- Created 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, sec. 9-507, effective July 1, 1960. 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 9 cases, 1964–1991 · leading case: First & Farmers Bank of Somerset, Inc. v. Henderson, 763 S.W.2d 137 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

First & Farmers Bank of Somerset, Inc. v. Henderson, 763 S.W.2d 137 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “KRS 355.9-507. It is well established that punitive damages may be recovered in an action for conversion if the defendant's conduct is sufficiently egregious.”

Bank Josephine v. Conn, 599 S.W.2d 773 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Notwithstanding the language of KRS 355.9-507(2), we believe that value was substantially and materially reduced because the appellant failed to act with commercial reasonableness in safeguarding it.”

Bailey v. Navistar Fin. Corp., 709 S.W.2d 841 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “Under KRS 355.9-507, appellee must also establish that it sent appellant commercially reasonable notice of the January 21, 1983, public sale because “every aspect of the disposition .”

Fort Knox Nat'l Bank v. Gustafson, 385 S.W.2d 196 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). · cites it 2× “In this connection, it must be noted that KRS 355.9-507(1, 2) relate to the measure of damages applicable here.”

Nelson v. Monarch Inv. Plan of Henderson, Inc., 452 S.W.2d 375 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). “KRS 355.9-507 provides in part: “The fact that a better price could have been obtained by a sale at a clif-ferent time or.”

Holt v. Peoples Bank of Mt. Washington, 814 S.W.2d 568 (Ky. 1991). · cites it 2× “9-504 provides that the debtor is liable for any deficiency, but KRS 355.9-507 provides that the secured party is liable for any loss caused by its failure to comply with the requirements of KRS 355.”

Herring Mining Co. v. Roberts Bros. Coal Co., 747 S.W.2d 616 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988). “Failure of the secured party to comply with the code provisions concerning disposal of the collateral will result in his liability to the debtor for damages, under KRS 355.9-507(1), for “any loss caused by a failure to comply with the provision.”

Greg Coats Cars, Inc. v. Kasey, 576 S.W.2d 251 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978). “2d 375 (1970) and KRS 355.9-507(2) and KRS 355.9-504(3). It is the opinion of this Court that there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation and it was error for the trial court to rescind the contract.”

Owens v. First Commonwealth Bank of Prestonsburg, 706 S.W.2d 414 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985). “” KRS 355.9-507(2). There is nothing in the record which indicates the Commissioner’s sale was irregular.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-507(1) — 2 cases

Fort Knox Nat'l Bank v. Gustafson, 385 S.W.2d 196 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “In this connection, it must be noted that KRS 355.9-507(1, 2) relate to the measure of damages applicable here.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-507(2) — 4 cases

Bank Josephine v. Conn, 599 S.W.2d 773 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980). “Notwithstanding the language of KRS 355.9-507(2), we believe that value was substantially and materially reduced because the appellant failed to act with commercial reasonableness in safeguarding it.”

Bailey v. Navistar Fin. Corp., 709 S.W.2d 841 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986). “Under KRS 355.9-507, appellee must also establish that it sent appellant commercially reasonable notice of the January 21, 1983, public sale because “every aspect of the disposition .”

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.