Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 9-203 (2026)

Attachment and enforceability of security interest; proceeds, formal requisites

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(REPEALED)

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1973, c. 762, §10 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 526, §27 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 696, §127 (RPR). PL 1987, c. 625, §8 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 737, §§C16,C106 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 104, §§C8,C10 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 429, §C17 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 699, §A1 (RP). PL 1999, c. 699, §A4 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Casco Bank & Trust Co. v. Cloutier, 398 A.2d 1224 (Me. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Casco Bank & Trust Co. v. Cloutier, 398 A.2d 1224 (Me. 1979). · cites it 3× “More specifically, the Cloutiers contend that the security interest was not “enforceable” because there had not been compliance with formal requisites prescribed by 11 M.R.S.A. § 9-203(l)(b) (1964). As will more clearly appear below, we are called upon to elucidate the policies…”

Frace v. Canal Nat'l Bank (In Re Frace), 17 B.R. 198 (Bankr. D. Me. 1982). · cites it 5× “Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, § 9-203 (1964), Comment 5.”

Doughty v. Sullivan, 661 A.2d 1112 (Me. 1995). “Assuming without deciding that the receipt signed by Neil constituted a valid security interest pursuant to 11 M.R.S.A. § 9-203 (1994), the trial court had an adequate basis for concluding that Ethe-lyn did not perfect her interest before the sale occurred pursuant to 11 M.”

Norton v. Associated Grocers of Maine, Inc. (In Re Peabody), 51 B.R. 157 (Bankr. D. Me. 1985). · cites it 2× “Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11 § 9-203(l)(a). An agreement for pledge purposes has been defined as an express agreement to vest possession in the pledgee (lender) during the term of the obligation.”

Hale v. Kontaratos (In Re Kontaratos), 10 B.R. 956 (Bankr. D. Me. 1981). “Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, § 9-101 [hereinafter cited: UCC §-].”

A-I Credit Corp. v. Big Squaw Mountain Corp. (In Re Big Squaw Mountain Corp.), 122 B.R. 831 (Bankr. D. Me. 1990). “, 11 M.R.S.A. §§ 9-203, 9-302. 18 .Certainly, at some point after unearned premiums are refunded, the exclusion will cease to operate.”

Lewiston Bottled Gas Co. v. Key Bank of Maine, 601 A.2d 91 (Me. 1992). “11 M.R.S.A. § 9-203(1) (Supp.1991) provides in pertinent part: (1) [A] security interest is not enforceable against the debtor or third parties with respect to the collateral and does not attach unless (a) [T]he debtor has signed a security agreement which contains a description…”

Lausier v. Goodwin, 7 B.R. 476 (Bankr. D. Me. 1980). “…commencement of the case.” 8 . Bankruptcy Code § 704(1). 9 . 9-A M.R.S.A. § 7-117(6). 10 . 12 CFR § 226.9 (h). 11 .11 M.R.S.A. § 9-203(1).”

Bezanson v. St. Pierre Credit Union (In Re Keene), 42 B.R. 239 (Bankr. D. Me. 1984). “11 M.R.S.A. § 9-203(1) and (2) (Supp.1983-1984).”

The Cnty. Fed. Credit Union v. Michael Madore, 2025 ME 93 (Me. 2025). · cites it 2× “7 [¶20] Finally, although we hold that section 9-1203(c)(2)(i) does not require a document formally designated as a “security agreement,” we note that here, the truth-in-lending disclosure statement that Richard signed as 6In Cloutier we analyzed 11 M.R.S. § 9-203 (1964), which…”

In re Beardsley, 745 A.2d 986 (Me. 2000). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to 11 M.R.S.A. § 9-203, WFNB’s security interests attached to each item at the moment Beardsley bought it, because Beardsley had signed a security agreement describing the collateral, WFNB had “given value,” and Beardsley had acquired “rights in the collateral.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 9-203(1) — 4 cases

Bezanson v. St. Pierre Credit Union (In Re Keene), 42 B.R. 239 (Bankr. D. Me. 1984). “11 M.R.S.A. § 9-203(1) and (2) (Supp.1983-1984).”

In re Beardsley, 745 A.2d 986 (Me. 2000). “Pursuant to 11 M.R.S.A. § 9-203, WFNB’s security interests attached to each item at the moment Beardsley bought it, because Beardsley had signed a security agreement describing the collateral, WFNB had “given value,” and Beardsley had acquired “rights in the collateral.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 9-203(l)(a) — 1 case

Norton v. Associated Grocers of Maine, Inc. (In Re Peabody), 51 B.R. 157 (Bankr. D. Me. 1985). “Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11 § 9-203(l)(a). An agreement for pledge purposes has been defined as an express agreement to vest possession in the pledgee (lender) during the term of the obligation.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 9-203(l)(b) — 2 cases

Casco Bank & Trust Co. v. Cloutier, 398 A.2d 1224 (Me. 1979). “More specifically, the Cloutiers contend that the security interest was not “enforceable” because there had not been compliance with formal requisites prescribed by 11 M.R.S.A. § 9-203(l)(b) (1964). As will more clearly appear below, we are called upon to elucidate the policies…”

Frace v. Canal Nat'l Bank (In Re Frace), 17 B.R. 198 (Bankr. D. Me. 1982). “Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, § 9-203 (1964), Comment 5.”

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.