La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 3:3651 (2026)

CHAPTER 22-A.  SECURITY DEVICES AFFECTING FARM PRODUCTS

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

CHAPTER 22-A.  SECURITY DEVICES AFFECTING FARM PRODUCTS

§3651.  Legislative findings and intent

The legislature hereby finds and declares that:

(1)  Certain state laws permit a secured lender to enforce liens against a purchaser of farm products even if the purchaser does not know that the sale of the products violates the lender's security interest in the products, lacks any practical method for discovering the existence of the security interest, and has no reasonable means to ensure that the seller uses the sales proceeds to repay the lender.

(2)  These laws subject the purchaser of farm products to double payment for the products, once at the time of purchase, and again when the seller fails to repay the lender.

(3)  The exposure of purchasers of farm products to double payment inhibits free competition in the market for farm products.

(4)  This exposure constitutes a burden on and an obstruction to commerce in Louisiana farm products.

(5)  The purpose of this legislation is to remove the burdens on and obstructions to commerce in Louisiana farm products.

Acts 1987, No. 451, §1, eff. Oct.  1, 1987.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1992–2019 · leading case: Henry v. Pioneer Sweet Potato Co., Inc., 614 So. 2d 853 (La. Ct. App. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Henry v. Pioneer Sweet Potato Co., Inc., 614 So. 2d 853 (La. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “For the pledge to be effective, the pledge and effective financing statement must be filed and cancelled pursuant to LSA-R.S. 3:3651 et seq. The statute concludes by providing that the right of pledge shall be subordinate to that of the claim of laborers for wages and for the…”
Meyhoeffer v. Wallace, 792 So. 2d 851 (La. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “R.S. 3:3651, et seq. As such, the trial court concluded that the Bank's perfected security interest outranked Dr.”
Bayou Pierre Farms v. Bat Farms Partners, III, 676 So. 2d 643 (La. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “R.S. 3:3651 et seq. and La.R.S. 10:9-101 et seq.”
Howard v. Stokes, 607 So. 2d 868 (La. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 14× “Notice of the crop pledge was properly filed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of LSA-R.S. 3:3651, et seq., although no such filing existed with respect to the other two security interests.”
Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Cent. Louisiana Grain Co-Op, Inc., 737 So. 2d 167 (La. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “]R.S. 3:3651 et seq. to perfect his lien in farm products to be given priority over a prior perfected security interest? |a3.”
Bayou Pierre Farms v. Bat Farms Partners, 693 So. 2d 1158 (La. 1997). · cites it 10× “R.S. 3:3651 et seq. and La.R.S. 10:9-101 et seq.”
Lanier Implement Co. v. G & H Seed Inc., 756 So. 2d 569 (La. Ct. App. 2000). “R.S. 3:3651, et seq.). Lanier contends the lower court had no basis for reducing its $23,500 hen on the 1994 crop just because it accepted a $20,000 payment on Guidry’s past due account.”
Agrifund, LLC v. Radar Ridge Planting Co., Inc. & Thomas A. Dickerson (La. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “(2) R.S. 3:3651 et seq. pertaining to central registry of security interests and liens affecting farm products or standing timber[.”
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.