Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 11
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 9-401 (2026)

Place of filing; erroneous filing; removal of collateral

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1969, c. 302, §1 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 269, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 770, §60 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 526, §76 (RP). PL 1977, c. 696, §142 (REEN). PL 1985, c. 824, §2 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 27, §2 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 699, §A1 (RP). PL 1999, c. 699, §A4 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1981–1999 · leading case: Pepperell Trust Co. v. Mountain Heir Fin. Corp., 1998 ME 46 (Me. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pepperell Trust Co. v. Mountain Heir Fin. Corp., 1998 ME 46 (Me. 1998). “[¶9] Pepperell argues, however, that because Mountain Heir had actual knowledge of Pepperell’s interest, Pepperell is entitled to a continuing priority pursuant to 11 M.R.S.A. § 9-401(2) (1995). Its reliance on § 9-401(2) is misplaced.”
Brasslett v. Brasslett (In Re Brasslett), 233 B.R. 177 (Bankr. D. Me. 1999). “1998) (property subject to attachment); Me. Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, § 9-401 (West 1995) (place of filing).”
Bezanson v. Kennebunk Sav. Bank (In Re Ladd), 21 B.R. 579 (Bankr. D. Me. 1982). “If the Court were to conclude that the Ladds’ home was personalty, then the bank would have a perfected security interest via the UCC-1 financing statement filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, §§ 9-401, 9-402.”
Farina v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In Re Farina), 9 B.R. 726 (Bankr. D. Me. 1981). “6 It having been determined that the Debt- or was located in Maine when the last event occurred on which is based the assertion that Ford’s security interest is perfected or unperfected, Section 9-103(3)(b) requires that Maine law govern the perfection and the effect of…”
Howison v. Rockport Nat'l Bank (In Re Crowley), 42 B.R. 603 (Bankr. D. Me. 1984). “11 M.R.S.A. § 9-401(l)(b) (Supp. 1983-1984).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 9-401(2) — 1 case
Pepperell Trust Co. v. Mountain Heir Fin. Corp., 1998 ME 46 (Me. 1998). “[¶9] Pepperell argues, however, that because Mountain Heir had actual knowledge of Pepperell’s interest, Pepperell is entitled to a continuing priority pursuant to 11 M.R.S.A. § 9-401(2) (1995). Its reliance on § 9-401(2) is misplaced.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 9-401(l)(b) — 2 cases
Farina v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In Re Farina), 9 B.R. 726 (Bankr. D. Me. 1981). “6 It having been determined that the Debt- or was located in Maine when the last event occurred on which is based the assertion that Ford’s security interest is perfected or unperfected, Section 9-103(3)(b) requires that Maine law govern the perfection and the effect of…”
Howison v. Rockport Nat'l Bank (In Re Crowley), 42 B.R. 603 (Bankr. D. Me. 1984). “11 M.R.S.A. § 9-401(l)(b) (Supp. 1983-1984).”
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.