Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 440 / Act 174 of 1962
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9104 (2026)

Control of deposit account.

✓ 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


440.9104 Control of deposit account.

Sec. 9104.

    (1) A secured party has control of a deposit account if 1 or more of the following apply:

    (a) The secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained.

    (b) The debtor, secured party, and bank have agreed in an authenticated record that the bank will comply with instructions originated by the secured party directing disposition of the funds in the deposit account without further consent by the debtor.

    (c) The secured party becomes the bank's customer with respect to the deposit account.

    (2) A secured party that has satisfied subsection (1) has control, even if the debtor retains the right to direct the disposition of funds from the deposit account.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 369, Eff. Jan. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 488, Imd. Eff. Jan. 4, 1999 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 348, Eff. July 1, 2001

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: In Re Est. of Moukalled, 714 N.W.2d 400 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Est. of Moukalled, 714 N.W.2d 400 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “9102(1)(a) provided in relevant part that article 9 applies "[t]o any transaction (regardless of its form) which is intended to create a security interest in personal property or fixtures including goods, documents, instruments, general intangibles, chattel paper or accounts .”
Ladd v. Motor City Plastics Co., 842 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “9104(l)(a), “even if the debtor retains the right to direct the disposition of funds from the deposit account,” MCL 440.9104(2). “[A] security interest held by the bank with which the deposit account is maintained has priority over a conflicting security interest held by another…”
Fodale v. Waste Mgmt. of Michigan, Inc, 718 N.W.2d 827 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Finally, options are not excluded from Article 9 pursuant to the 1979 version of MCL 440.9104. In conclusion, Article 9 applies to the 1987 loan agreements.”
Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, MCL 440.9104(j) provided that prior Article 9 did not apply “to the creation or transfer of an interest in or hen on real estate .”
In re Lundy Est., 804 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “MCL 440.9104(1) provides: A secured party has control of a deposit account if 1 or more of the foEowing apply: (a) The secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained.”
Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 576 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 4× “8 MCL 440.9104; MSA 19.9104. See also White & Summers, n 7 supra, § 21-2, p 926.”
Richardson v. Huntington Nat'l Bank (In Re Cyberco Holdings, Inc.), 382 B.R. 118 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 2× “Laws § 440.9104(1)(A). Moreover, it makes no difference that CyberCo also had access to these accounts.”
United States v. One Silicon Valley Bank Account, 3300355711, 549 F. Supp. 2d 940 (W.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 3× “A security interest in a deposit account is considered perfected under Michigan law when the secured party is in control of the account under Michigan Compiled Laws § 440.9104. M.C.L. § 440.9314(1). Under Michigan Compiled Laws § 440.”
Frank v. ITT Com. Fin. Corp. (In Re Thompson Boat Co.), 230 B.R. 815 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1995). · cites it 7× “One other consideration relevant to this issue is Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9104 (i), which provides that “article [9] does not apply .”
Ryan Racing, LLC v. Gentilozzi, 231 F. Supp. 3d 269 (W.D. Mich. 2017). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9104 (1)(a)-(b). Rocketsports did not maintain its checking account with any of the secured parties, and there is no evidence of an agreement with National City allowing a secured party to direct the disposition of the funds in that account.”
Wonsey v. Life Ins. Co. of North Am., 32 F. Supp. 2d 939 (E.D. Mich. 1998). · cites it 3× “§ 440.9104. As defendants note, Article 9 excludes from its scope “a transfer of an interest or claim in or under any policy of insurance except as provided with respect to proceeds.”
N. Acres, Inc. v. Hillman State Bank (In Re N. Acres, Inc.), 52 B.R. 641 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1985). · cites it 3× “Mich.Comp.Laws § 440.9104(j); Mich.Stat. Ann.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9104(1) — 1 case
In re Lundy Est., 804 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 440.9104(1) provides: A secured party has control of a deposit account if 1 or more of the foEowing apply: (a) The secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9104(1)(A) — 1 case
Richardson v. Huntington Nat'l Bank (In Re Cyberco Holdings, Inc.), 382 B.R. 118 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2008). “Laws § 440.9104(1)(A). Moreover, it makes no difference that CyberCo also had access to these accounts.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9104(2) — 2 cases
Ladd v. Motor City Plastics Co., 842 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “9104(l)(a), “even if the debtor retains the right to direct the disposition of funds from the deposit account,” MCL 440.9104(2). “[A] security interest held by the bank with which the deposit account is maintained has priority over a conflicting security interest held by another…”
Richardson v. Huntington Nat'l Bank (In Re Cyberco Holdings, Inc.), 382 B.R. 118 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2008). “Laws § 440.9104(1)(A). Moreover, it makes no difference that CyberCo also had access to these accounts.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9104(b) — 2 cases
Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 576 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. 1998). “8 MCL 440.9104; MSA 19.9104. See also White & Summers, n 7 supra, § 21-2, p 926.”
Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 553 N.W.2d 366 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9104(c) — 2 cases
Nat'l Bank v. Eames & Brown, Inc., 242 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. 1976).
Nat. Bank of Detroit v. Eames & Brown, Inc., 213 N.W.2d 573 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9104(f) — 1 case
Fed. Land Bank of St Paul v. Bay Park Place, Inc, 412 N.W.2d 222 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9104(g) — 3 cases
Comerica Bank-Ann Arbor, N.A. v. Sutherland (In Re Duke Roofing Co.), 47 B.R. 990 (E.D. Mich. 1985).
Wonsey v. Life Ins. Co. of North Am., 32 F. Supp. 2d 939 (E.D. Mich. 1998). “§ 440.9104. As defendants note, Article 9 excludes from its scope “a transfer of an interest or claim in or under any policy of insurance except as provided with respect to proceeds.”
In Re Johnson, 439 B.R. 416 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9104(i) — 2 cases
Frank v. ITT Com. Fin. Corp. (In Re Thompson Boat Co.), 230 B.R. 815 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1995). “One other consideration relevant to this issue is Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9104 (i), which provides that “article [9] does not apply .”
Se. Fin. Corp. v. Nat'l Bank, 377 N.W.2d 900 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9104(j) — 8 cases
In Re Est. of Moukalled, 714 N.W.2d 400 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “9102(1)(a) provided in relevant part that article 9 applies "[t]o any transaction (regardless of its form) which is intended to create a security interest in personal property or fixtures including goods, documents, instruments, general intangibles, chattel paper or accounts .”
Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Furthermore, MCL 440.9104(j) provided that prior Article 9 did not apply “to the creation or transfer of an interest in or hen on real estate .”
N. Acres, Inc. v. Hillman State Bank (In Re N. Acres, Inc.), 52 B.R. 641 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1985). “Mich.Comp.Laws § 440.9104(j); Mich.Stat. Ann.”
McTevia v. Adamo (In Re Atl. Mortg. Corp.), 69 B.R. 321 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1987).
Bakian v. Fifth Third Bank, 714 N.W.2d 400 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9104(l)(a) — 3 cases
Ladd v. Motor City Plastics Co., 842 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “9104(l)(a), “even if the debtor retains the right to direct the disposition of funds from the deposit account,” MCL 440.9104(2). “[A] security interest held by the bank with which the deposit account is maintained has priority over a conflicting security interest held by another…”
United States v. One Silicon Valley Bank Account, 3300355711, 549 F. Supp. 2d 940 (W.D. Mich. 2008). “A security interest in a deposit account is considered perfected under Michigan law when the secured party is in control of the account under Michigan Compiled Laws § 440.9104. M.C.L. § 440.9314(1). Under Michigan Compiled Laws § 440.”
In re Lundy Est., 804 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 440.9104(1) provides: A secured party has control of a deposit account if 1 or more of the foEowing apply: (a) The secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained.”
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.