Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9101 (2026)
Uniform commercial code—secured transactions; short title.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
Act 174 of 1962
440.9101 Uniform commercial code—secured transactions; short title.
Sec. 9101.
This article shall be known and may be cited as "uniform commercial code—secured transactions".
History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Fodale v. Waste Mgmt. of Michigan, Inc, 718 N.W.2d 827 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
Fodale v. Waste Mgmt. of Michigan, Inc, 718 N.W.2d 827 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Controlling Version of Article 9 Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his claims based on Article 9 of the UCC, MCL 440.9101 et seq., governing secured transactions.”
Vern Lettinga v. Agristor Credit Corp., a Delaware Corp., 686 F.2d 442 (6th Cir. 1982). “Despite this theory of non-competing security interests in dissimilar collateral, Lettinga continued to argue for the application of Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 440.9101 et seq.”
Nat'l Bank v. Eames & Brown, Inc., 242 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. 1976). “MCLA 440.9101 et seq.; MSA 19.9101 et seq.”
Johnson v. QFD, Inc., 807 N.W.2d 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “, and (4) alleging certain violations of Article 9 of the UCC, MCL 440.9101 et seq. In September 2009, QFD moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.”
In Re Est. of Moukalled, 714 N.W.2d 400 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Article 9, MCL 440.9101 et seq., was substantially amended by 2000 P.”
In re Lundy Est., 804 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “, article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), MCL 440.9101 et seq., and the terms of an “Assignment of Deposit Account” (the assignment agreement) be *349 tween the bank and the decedent in determining whether a bank, as the holder of a perfected security interest in a CD…”
Comerica Bank-Ann Arbor, N.A. v. Sutherland (In Re Duke Roofing Co.), 47 B.R. 990 (E.D. Mich. 1985). “Comerica filed a financing statement with the Michigan Secretary of State which perfected its security interest under Article Nine of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in Michigan, MCLA §§ 440.9101, et seq. On January 29, 1983, debtor filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11.”
Hill v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 525 N.W.2d 905 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “However, while the UCC may have rendered some of the distinctions between these transactions irrelevant by treating them all as "security interests," it does not alter the basic definitions of these transactions.”
Andriacchi's, Inc. v. Pike (In Re Pike), 62 B.R. 765 (W.D. Mich. 1986). “In a brief opinion and order dated August 13, 1985, the bankruptcy court ruled that neither the bank nor Andriacchi’s were required to perfect their security interests in the liquor licenses. In order to have lien rights superior to the trustee, perfection is required pursuant…”
Conagra, Inc v. Farmers State Bank, 602 N.W.2d 390 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “and also continues in any identifiable proceeds ...” though the parties have not specifically *121 included “proceeds” in their security agreements or ucc-l/financing statements.”
Crestmark Bank v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 155 F. Supp. 3d 723 (E.D. Mich. 2016). “Resins and Raw Materials The rights to the resins and other raw materials purchased by Electrolux and stored at Tarheel for use in its manufacturing turn on the extent of Tarheel’s rights over the resins in its inventory at the time it ceased operations.”
Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 576 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. 1998). “See also MCL 440.9101; MSA 19.9101, comment; MCL 440.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9101(1)(a) — 1 case
Thomas Hosp. Grp. Inc v. Bree Enter. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
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.