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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9105 (2026)

Control of electronic chattel paper.

✓ 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


440.9105 Control of electronic chattel paper.

Sec. 9105.

    (1) A secured party has control of electronic chattel paper if a system employed for evidencing the transfer of interests in the chattel paper reliably establishes the secured party as the person to which the chattel paper was assigned.

    (2) A system satisfies subsection (1) if the record or records comprising the chattel paper are created, stored, and assigned in such a manner that all of the following apply:

    (a) A single authoritative copy of the record or records exists which is unique, identifiable, and, except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f), unalterable.

    (b) The authoritative copy identifies the secured party as the assignee of the record or records.

    (c) The authoritative copy is communicated to and maintained by the secured party or its designated custodian.

    (d) Copies or amendments that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy can be made only with the consent of the secured party.

    (e) Each copy of the authoritative copy and any copy of a copy is readily identifiable as a copy that is not the authoritative copy.

    (f) Any amendment of the authoritative copy is readily identifiable as authorized or unauthorized.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 369, Eff. Jan. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 1987, Act 16, Imd. Eff. Apr. 24, 1987 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 130, Eff. Sept. 1, 1988 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 278, Imd. Eff. July 27, 1998 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 488, Imd. Eff. Jan. 4, 1999 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 348, Eff. July 1, 2001 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 88, Eff. July 1, 2013

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1968–2008 · leading case: Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 576 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 576 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 6× “22 MCL 440.9105; MSA 19.9105, comment states: To secure his own financing a secured party may wish to borrow against or sell the security agreement itself along with his interest in the collateral which he has received from his debtor.”
Matter of Cliff's Ridge Skiing Corp., 123 B.R. 753 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1991). · cites it 4× “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.9105(l)(g). 11 In other instances, a holder of a perfected security interest in a fixture will be subordinate to a conflicting interest of an encumbrancer of the related real estate.”
Rohe Sci. Corp. v. Nat'l Bank, 350 N.W.2d 280 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “MCL 440.9105(l)(d); MSA 19.9105(l)(d); see also White & Summers, Handbook of the Law Linder the Uniform Commercial Code (West, 2d ed, 1980), p 913.”
Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “” MCL 440.9105(1); cf. MCL 440.9102(l)(uu) (2001).”
Frank v. ITT Com. Fin. Corp. (In Re Thompson Boat Co.), 230 B.R. 815 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1995). · cites it 4× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9105 (l)(a). Under the terms of the agreement between Thompson and ITT, that “person” is ITT.”
Warren Tool Co. v. Stephenson, 161 N.W.2d 133 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “17 MOLA § 440.9105 (Stat Ann 1964 Eev § 19.9105).”
Roan v. Murray, 556 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “” MCL 440.9105(1); MSA 19.9105(1). Section 9-203(1), MCL 440.”
Rzepka v. Michael, 431 N.W.2d 441 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “Plaintiff further argues that the trial court erred in determining that the transaction with Opportunities did not involve a franchise.”
Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 553 N.W.2d 366 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “MCL 440.9105 comment 4; MSA 19.9105 comment 4.”
Int'l Harvester Credit Corp. v. Vos, 290 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Finally, the opinion noted that decisions as to the nature of the goods and collateral, MCL 440.9105(1)(f); MSA 19.9105(1)(f), MCL 440.”
NBD-Sandusky Bank v. Ritter, 471 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. 1991). “” MCL 440.9105(1X1); MSA 19.9105(1)0) defines a security agreement as: "an agreement which creates or provides for a security interest.”
Underground Flint, Inc. v. Viro, Inc., 80 B.R. 87 (E.D. Mich. 1982). “§ 440.9105 and § 440.9106 and *89 finds that the liquor license is not within any of the said definitions.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9105(1) — 3 cases
Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “” MCL 440.9105(1); cf. MCL 440.9102(l)(uu) (2001).”
Roan v. Murray, 556 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “” MCL 440.9105(1); MSA 19.9105(1). Section 9-203(1), MCL 440.”
Shinville Leasing, Inc. v. Miller Equip. Co. (In Re Shinville Leasing, Inc.), 46 B.R. 352 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1985).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9105(1)(f) — 1 case
Int'l Harvester Credit Corp. v. Vos, 290 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “Finally, the opinion noted that decisions as to the nature of the goods and collateral, MCL 440.9105(1)(f); MSA 19.9105(1)(f), MCL 440.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9105(1X1) — 1 case
NBD-Sandusky Bank v. Ritter, 471 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. 1991). “” MCL 440.9105(1X1); MSA 19.9105(1)0) defines a security agreement as: "an agreement which creates or provides for a security interest.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9105(b) — 1 case
Rzepka v. Michael, 431 N.W.2d 441 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “Plaintiff further argues that the trial court erred in determining that the transaction with Opportunities did not involve a franchise.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9105(c) — 1 case
Nat. Bank of Detroit v. Eames & Brown, Inc., 213 N.W.2d 573 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9105(f) — 1 case
Coachmen Indus., Inc. v. Charay Indus., Inc. (In Re Charay Indus., Inc.), 23 B.R. 988 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1982).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9105(h) — 2 cases
Borock v. NBD Dearborn Bank, N.A. (In re D.J. Maltese, Inc.), 42 B.R. 589 (E.D. Mich. 1984).
Matter of DJ Maltese, Inc., 42 B.R. 589 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1984).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9105(i) — 1 case
Coachmen Indus., Inc. v. Charay Indus., Inc. (In Re Charay Indus., Inc.), 23 B.R. 988 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1982).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9105(l)(c) — 2 cases
Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 576 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. 1998). “22 MCL 440.9105; MSA 19.9105, comment states: To secure his own financing a secured party may wish to borrow against or sell the security agreement itself along with his interest in the collateral which he has received from his debtor.”
Parker v. Michigan Nat'l Bank (In re Parker), 90 B.R. 857 (W.D. Mich. 1988).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9105(l)(d) — 3 cases
Rohe Sci. Corp. v. Nat'l Bank, 350 N.W.2d 280 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “MCL 440.9105(l)(d); MSA 19.9105(l)(d); see also White & Summers, Handbook of the Law Linder the Uniform Commercial Code (West, 2d ed, 1980), p 913.”
Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 576 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. 1998). “22 MCL 440.9105; MSA 19.9105, comment states: To secure his own financing a secured party may wish to borrow against or sell the security agreement itself along with his interest in the collateral which he has received from his debtor.”
Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 553 N.W.2d 366 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “MCL 440.9105 comment 4; MSA 19.9105 comment 4.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9105(l)(f) — 1 case
Int'l Harvester Credit Corp. v. Vos, 290 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “Finally, the opinion noted that decisions as to the nature of the goods and collateral, MCL 440.9105(1)(f); MSA 19.9105(1)(f), MCL 440.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9105(l)(g) — 1 case
Matter of Cliff's Ridge Skiing Corp., 123 B.R. 753 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1991). “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.9105(l)(g). 11 In other instances, a holder of a perfected security interest in a fixture will be subordinate to a conflicting interest of an encumbrancer of the related real estate.”
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.