Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9305 (2026)

Law governing perfection and priority of security interests in investment property.

✓ 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

440.9305 Law governing perfection and priority of security interests in investment property.

Sec. 9305.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), the following rules apply:

(a) While a security certificate 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 the certificated security represented thereby.

(b) The local law of the issuer's jurisdiction as specified in section 8110(4) governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in an uncertificated security.

(c) The local law of the securities intermediary's jurisdiction as specified in section 8110(5) governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in a security entitlement or securities account.

(d) The local law of the commodity intermediary's jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in a commodity contract or commodity account.

(2) The following rules determine a commodity intermediary's jurisdiction for purposes of this part:

(a) If an agreement between the commodity intermediary and commodity customer governing the commodity account expressly provides that a particular jurisdiction is the commodity intermediary's jurisdiction for purposes of this part, this article, or this act, that jurisdiction is the commodity intermediary's jurisdiction.

(b) If subdivision (a) does not apply and an agreement between the commodity intermediary and commodity customer governing the commodity account expressly provides that the agreement is governed by the law of a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is the commodity intermediary's jurisdiction.

(c) If neither subdivision (a) nor (b) applies and an agreement between the commodity intermediary and commodity customer governing the commodity account expressly provides that the commodity account is maintained at an office in a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is the commodity intermediary's jurisdiction.

(d) If none of the preceding subdivisions apply, the commodity intermediary's jurisdiction is the jurisdiction in which the office identified in an account statement as the office serving the commodity customer's account is located.

(e) If none of the preceding subdivisions apply, the commodity intermediary's jurisdiction is the jurisdiction in which the chief executive office of the commodity intermediary is located.

(3) The local law of the jurisdiction in which the debtor is located governs perfection of a security interest in investment property by filing, automatic perfection of a security interest in investment property created by a broker or securities intermediary, and automatic perfection of a security interest in a commodity contract or commodity account created by a commodity intermediary.

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. 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

Cited in 7 cases, 1970–2008 · 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 6× “MCL 440.9305. Although a secured party could take possession through an agent, “the debtor or a person controlled by him cannot qualify as such an agent for the secured party.”

McTevia v. Adamo (In Re Atl. Mortg. Corp.), 69 B.R. 321 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1987). “§ 440.9305; Starr v. Bruce Farley Corp., 612 F.”

Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 576 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. 1998). “9302(l)(a), MCL 440.9305; MSA 19.9305, and defendant’s argument that his liability under the personal guaranty agreements was discharged as a result of plaintiffs’ failure to perfect their secured interest would necessarily fail.”

August v. Poznanski, 174 N.W.2d 807 (Mich. 1970). · cites it 2× “The UCC provides that possession of the mortgaged chattels by the mortgagee perfects the mortgagee’s security interest (MCLA § 440.9305 [Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19.9305]).”

Uni-Prods., Inc. v. Bearse (In Re Uni-Prods., Inc.), 153 B.R. 764 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1993). · cites it 2× “Anderson, 3 Uniform Commercial Code § 2-401:22 (3d ed. 1992) (“The fact that the seller retains possession of the goods does not bar concluding that title has passed to the buyer.”

Nat. Bank of Detroit v. Eames & Brown, Inc., 213 N.W.2d 573 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “5 See: MCLA 440.9305; MSA 19.9305, and White and Summers, Uniform Commercial Code, § 23-10, pp 814-818.”

Robinson v. Hyatt (In re Hyatt), 26 B.R. 162 (E.D. Mich. 1983). “§ 440.9305. Under this section where the collateral is held by a bailee, the secured party is deemed to have possession from the time the bailee receives notification of the secured party’s interest.”

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.