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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9301 (2026)

Law governing perfection and priority of security interests.

✓ 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


440.9301 Law governing perfection and priority of security interests.

Sec. 9301.

    Except as otherwise provided in sections 9303 through 9306, the following rules determine the law governing perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in collateral:

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, while a debtor is located in a jurisdiction, the local law of that jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in collateral.

    (b) While collateral is located in a jurisdiction, the local law of that jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a possessory security interest in that collateral.

    (c) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (d), while tangible negotiable documents, goods, instruments, money, or tangible chattel paper is located in a jurisdiction, the local law of that jurisdiction governs perfection of a security interest in the goods by filing a fixture filing, perfection of a security interest in timber to be cut, and the effect of perfection or nonperfection and the priority of a nonpossessory security interest in the collateral.

    (d) The local law of the jurisdiction in which the wellhead or minehead is located governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in as-extracted collateral.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 369, Eff. Jan. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 170, Imd. Eff. June 29, 1984 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 278, Imd. Eff. July 27, 1998 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 348, Eff. July 1, 2001 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 87, Eff. July 1, 2013

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases, 1969–2011 · leading case: Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “See MCL 440.9301(1). Under prior Article 9, a security interest typically became perfected when the secured party filed a UCC-1 financing statement covering the collateral to which the security interest attached.”
Boyd v. NBD Bank (In Re Thomas), 231 B.R. 8 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1999). · cites it 7× “Section 440.9301 of the U.C.C. provides that an unperfected security interest is “subordinate to the rights of .”
Earl Dubey & Sons, Inc. v. MacOmb Contracting Corp., 296 N.W.2d 582 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “MCL 440.9301; MSA 19.9301 provides in part: "(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), an unperfected security interest is subordinate to the rights of: "(b) A person who becomes a lien creditor before the security interest is perfected.”
Frank v. Norbel Credit Union (In Re Murray), 109 B.R. 245 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1989). · cites it 4× “Mich.Comp. Laws § 440.9301(l)(b). The trustee is particularly convinced that Norbel’s security interest is unperfected since a purchaser at a sheriff’s execution sale would be able to secure a clear title to this vehicle simply by presenting a bill of sale signed by the sheriff.”
In re Lundy Est., 804 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “It governs such things as perfection of security interests, MCL 440.9301 to MCL 440.9316, priority of security interests, MCL 440.”
In Re Damon J. & Regina M. Kroskie, Debtors. James W. Boyd, Chapter 7 Tr. v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 315 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2003). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9301 (l)(b)(i) (amended 2000).”
Michigan Tractor & Mach. Co. v. Elsey, 549 N.W.2d 27 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “As a result of that conclusion, plaintiffs interest was superior to that of intervening defendants with respect to garnishee defendant’s debt to defendant under UCC 9-301, MCL 440.9301; MSA 19.9301, because plaintiff was a lien creditor while intervening defendants were only…”
Int'l Harvester Credit Corp. v. Vos, 290 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “9402(1), MCL 440.9301(1)(b); MSA 19.9301(1)(b), the sequence of steps in obtaining perfection is not determinative, so that perfection would occur whenever and wherever these requisites were met.”
Caro Area Servs. for the Handicapped v. Michigan Dep't of Transp. (In Re Caro Area Servs. for the Handicapped), 53 B.R. 438 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “Since the certificates of title do not list MDOT’s interest, their security interests are unperfected as a matter of state commercial law, subordinate to a judicial lien creditor under Mich. Comp.Laws § 440.9301; Mich.Stat.Ann.”
Bleau v. First of Am. Bank-Cent. (In Re Arnold), 132 B.R. 13 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1991). · cites it 2× “The conclusion that a post-judgment garnishing creditor would have priority in Michigan over subsequent judicial lien creditors is reinforced by Mich.Comp.Laws § 440.9301(1)(b), which provides that a secured creditor is subordinated to a lien creditor if the security interest is…”
In Re Toga Mfg. Ltd., 28 B.R. 165 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1983). “§ 440.9301(3). 6 . Section 107 of the Canadian Bankruptcy Act basically divides creditors into four classes for purposes of priority distribution.”
McTevia v. Adamo (In Re Atl. Mortg. Corp.), 69 B.R. 321 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1987). “§ 440.9301(l)(b). D. An Investor’s Interest in an Assigned Mortgage In analyzing an investor’s interest in an assigned mortgage, the question becomes whether the assigned mortgage gives the investor any rights independent of the rights given to the investor by the underlying…”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9301(1) — 3 cases
Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “See MCL 440.9301(1). Under prior Article 9, a security interest typically became perfected when the secured party filed a UCC-1 financing statement covering the collateral to which the security interest attached.”
Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 553 N.W.2d 366 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
Indus. Mach. & Equip. Co. v. Lapeer Cnty. Bank & Trust Co., 540 N.W.2d 781 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9301(1)(b) — 3 cases
Bleau v. First of Am. Bank-Cent. (In Re Arnold), 132 B.R. 13 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1991). “The conclusion that a post-judgment garnishing creditor would have priority in Michigan over subsequent judicial lien creditors is reinforced by Mich.Comp.Laws § 440.9301(1)(b), which provides that a secured creditor is subordinated to a lien creditor if the security interest is…”
Uni-Prods., Inc. v. Bearse (In Re Uni-Prods., Inc.), 153 B.R. 764 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1993).
Int'l Harvester Credit Corp. v. Vos, 290 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “9402(1), MCL 440.9301(1)(b); MSA 19.9301(1)(b), the sequence of steps in obtaining perfection is not determinative, so that perfection would occur whenever and wherever these requisites were met.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9301(1)(d) — 2 cases
Brown v. Yousif, 517 N.W.2d 727 (Mich. 1994).
In Re Gene, 207 B.R. 861 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1997).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9301(3) — 6 cases
In Re Toga Mfg. Ltd., 28 B.R. 165 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1983). “§ 440.9301(3). 6 . Section 107 of the Canadian Bankruptcy Act basically divides creditors into four classes for purposes of priority distribution.”
Earl Dubey & Sons, Inc. v. MacOmb Contracting Corp., 296 N.W.2d 582 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “MCL 440.9301; MSA 19.9301 provides in part: "(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), an unperfected security interest is subordinate to the rights of: "(b) A person who becomes a lien creditor before the security interest is perfected.”
Boyd v. NBD Bank (In Re Thomas), 231 B.R. 8 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1999). “Section 440.9301 of the U.C.C. provides that an unperfected security interest is “subordinate to the rights of .”
Grabscheid v. Calvert Sales, Inc. (In Re C.J. Rogers, Inc.), 150 B.R. 413 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1992).
Michigan Tractor & Mach. Co. v. Elsey, 549 N.W.2d 27 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “As a result of that conclusion, plaintiffs interest was superior to that of intervening defendants with respect to garnishee defendant’s debt to defendant under UCC 9-301, MCL 440.9301; MSA 19.9301, because plaintiff was a lien creditor while intervening defendants were only…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9301(4) — 1 case
Earl Dubey & Sons, Inc. v. MacOmb Contracting Corp., 296 N.W.2d 582 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “MCL 440.9301; MSA 19.9301 provides in part: "(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), an unperfected security interest is subordinate to the rights of: "(b) A person who becomes a lien creditor before the security interest is perfected.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9301(b) — 2 cases
Int'l Harvester Credit Corp. v. Vos, 290 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “9402(1), MCL 440.9301(1)(b); MSA 19.9301(1)(b), the sequence of steps in obtaining perfection is not determinative, so that perfection would occur whenever and wherever these requisites were met.”
Cent. Nat'l Bank v. Wonderland Realty Corp., 195 N.W.2d 768 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9301(l)(b) — 7 cases
Frank v. Norbel Credit Union (In Re Murray), 109 B.R. 245 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1989). “Mich.Comp. Laws § 440.9301(l)(b). The trustee is particularly convinced that Norbel’s security interest is unperfected since a purchaser at a sheriff’s execution sale would be able to secure a clear title to this vehicle simply by presenting a bill of sale signed by the sheriff.”
McTevia v. Adamo (In Re Atl. Mortg. Corp.), 69 B.R. 321 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1987). “§ 440.9301(l)(b). D. An Investor’s Interest in an Assigned Mortgage In analyzing an investor’s interest in an assigned mortgage, the question becomes whether the assigned mortgage gives the investor any rights independent of the rights given to the investor by the underlying…”
Boyd v. NBD Bank (In Re Thomas), 231 B.R. 8 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1999). “Section 440.9301 of the U.C.C. provides that an unperfected security interest is “subordinate to the rights of .”
Michigan Tractor & Mach. Co. v. Elsey, 549 N.W.2d 27 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “As a result of that conclusion, plaintiffs interest was superior to that of intervening defendants with respect to garnishee defendant’s debt to defendant under UCC 9-301, MCL 440.9301; MSA 19.9301, because plaintiff was a lien creditor while intervening defendants were only…”
Underground Flint, Inc. v. Viro, Inc., 80 B.R. 87 (E.D. Mich. 1982).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9301(l)(c) — 1 case
Nat'l Bank v. Frydlewicz, 241 N.W.2d 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9301(l)(d) — 1 case
Nat. Bank of Detroit v. Eames & Brown, Inc., 213 N.W.2d 573 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).
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.