UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
Act 174 of 1962
440.9106 Control of investment property.
Sec. 9106.
(1) A person has control of a certificated security, uncertificated security, or security entitlement as provided in section 8106.
(2) A secured party has control of a commodity contract if either of the following is met:
(a) The secured party is the commodity intermediary with which the commodity contract is carried.
(b) The commodity customer, secured party, and commodity intermediary have agreed that the commodity intermediary will apply any value distributed on account of the commodity contract as directed by the secured party without further consent by the commodity customer.
(3) A secured party having control of all security entitlements or commodity contracts carried in a securities account or commodity account has control over the securities account or commodity account.
History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 369, Eff. Jan. 1, 1979 ;-- 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
Notes of Decisions
In Re Delbridge, 61 B.R. 484 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1986).
· cites it 2× “9106 (hereinafter UCC §_-_) provides that: "Account” means any right to payment for goods sold or leased or for services rendered which is not evidenced by an instrument or chattel paper whether or not it has been earned by performance.”
In RE v. Pangori & Sons, Inc., 53 B.R. 711 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Thus, even though the funds retained by the city represent “accounts” as that term is defined by Mich.Comp.Laws § 440.9106; Mich.Stat.Ann.”
Parraway v. Andrews Univ., 50 B.R. 316 (W.D. Mich. 1984).
· cites it 3× “2 Section 440.9106 defines a general intangible as follows: “General intangibles” means any personal property (including things in action) other than goods, accounts, chattel paper, documents, instruments, and money.”
Earl Dubey & Sons, Inc. v. MacOmb Contracting Corp., 296 N.W.2d 582 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“” MCL 440.9106; MSA 19.9106. Defendants contend that since Western Bank perfected its security interest prior to the date that plaintiffs achieved lien creditor status 1 by judgment and writ of garnishment Western should prevail.”
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.”
Underground Flint, Inc. v. Viro, Inc., 80 B.R. 87 (E.D. Mich. 1982).
· cites it 2× “§ 440.9106 “general intangibles” are defined as “any personal property (including things in action) other than goods, accounts, contract rights, chattel paper, documents and instruments.”
Matter of DJ Maltese, Inc., 42 B.R. 589 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1984).
· cites it 6× “§ 440.9106 (West 1967). In 1972, U.C.C. § 9-106 was amended.”
Bank of Lansing v. Barkley (In Re Barkley), 31 B.R. 924 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1983).
“§ 440.9106], In the present situation, it is unclear whether the debtor was paid immediately for the services he provided, or whether the services were charged on an open account.”
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.