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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9312 (2026)

Perfection of security interests in chattel paper, deposit accounts, documents, goods covered by documents, instruments, investment property, letter-of-credit rights, and money; perfection by permissive filing; temporary perfection without filing or transfer of possession.

✓ 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


440.9312 Perfection of security interests in chattel paper, deposit accounts, documents, goods covered by documents, instruments, investment property, letter-of-credit rights, and money; perfection by permissive filing; temporary perfection without filing or transfer of possession.

Sec. 9312.

    (1) A security interest in chattel paper, negotiable documents, instruments, or investment property may be perfected by filing.

    (2) Except as otherwise provided in section 9315(3) and (4) for proceeds, a security interest in a deposit account, a letter-of-credit right, or money may be perfected only as follows:

    (a) A security interest in a deposit account may be perfected only by control under section 9314.

    (b) Except as otherwise provided in section 9308(4), a security interest in a letter-of-credit right may be perfected only by control under section 9314.

    (c) A security interest in money may be perfected only by the secured party's taking possession under section 9313.

    (3) While goods are in the possession of a bailee that has issued a negotiable document covering the goods, a security interest in the goods may be perfected by perfecting a security interest in the document, and a security interest perfected in the document has priority over any security interest that becomes perfected in the goods by another method during that time.

    (4) While goods are in the possession of a bailee that has issued a nonnegotiable document covering the goods, a security interest in the goods may be perfected by 1 or more of the following:

    (a) Issuance of a document in the name of the secured party.

    (b) The bailee's receipt of notification of the secured party's interest.

    (c) Filing as to the goods.

    (5) A security interest in certificated securities, negotiable documents, or instruments is perfected without filing or the taking of possession or control for a period of 20 days from the time it attaches to the extent that it arises for new value given under an authenticated security agreement.

    (6) A perfected security interest in a negotiable document or goods in possession of a bailee, other than one that has issued a negotiable document for the goods, remains perfected for 20 days without filing if the secured party makes available to the debtor the goods or documents representing the goods for the purpose of ultimate sale or exchange, or for the purpose of loading, unloading, storing, shipping, transshipping, manufacturing, processing, or otherwise dealing with them in a manner preliminary to their sale or exchange.

    (7) A perfected security interest in a certificated security or instrument remains perfected for 20 days without filing if the secured party delivers the security certificate or instrument to the debtor for the purpose of ultimate sale or exchange or for the purpose of presentation, collection, enforcement, renewal, or registration of transfer.

    (8) After the 20-day period specified in subsection (5), (6), or (7) expires, perfection depends upon compliance with this article.

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. 1987, Act 16, Imd. Eff. Apr. 24, 1987 ;-- 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 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2023 · 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 5× “See also Example 2 to MCL 440.9312 (“Whichever secured party first perfects his interest (by taking possession of the collateral or by filing) takes priority and it makes no difference whether or not he knows of the other interest at the time he perfects his own.”
Yamaha Motor Corp., USA v. Tri-City Motors & Sports, Inc., 429 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 7× “9402, 23 MCLA 467-468, and by being a "pure race” statute (except under certain enumerated circumstances), see MCL 440.9312; MSA 19.9312; White & Summers, supra, § 25-4, p 906.”
NBD-Sandusky Bank v. Ritter, 446 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 14× “The trial court found that John Deere Company's purchase money security interest in two pieces of farm equipment was not perfected within twenty days after the debtor received possession of the equipment, so it was subordinate to NBD's prior perfected security interest in the…”
NBD-Sandusky Bank v. Ritter, 471 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. 1991). · cites it 9× “Thus, since John Deere’s perfected security interest failed to qualify for special priority status under MCL 440.9312(5); MSA 19.9312(5), the Court of Appeals held nbd’s security interest in the same collateral by virtue of its "after-acquired property” clause *357 had priority.”
Equip. Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Traverse Comput. Brokers, & Synchronized Design & Dev. Co., Inc., 973 F.2d 345 (4th Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “See Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.9312. Finally, Equipment Finance’s contention that an evidentiary hearing was required to determine the nature of the agreement between Traverse and Synchronized is without merit.”
Frank v. ITT Com. Fin. Corp. (In Re Thompson Boat Co.), 230 B.R. 815 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1995). · cites it 7× “The priority of article 9 security interests is generally governed by Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9312 which, with certain exceptions, “rank[s such interests] according to .”
Thorp Fin. Corp. v. Ken Hodgins & Sons, 251 N.W.2d 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “9204(1) and the March 20, 1974 note incorporated by reference the 1971 security agreement into the 1974 loan.”
In RE v. Pangori & Sons, Inc., 53 B.R. 711 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “§ 110 (c), repealed] and Mich. Comp.Laws § 440.9312(5); Mich.Stat.”
Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Hoerner (In Re Grand Valley Sport & Marine, Inc.), 143 B.R. 840 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1992). “r: (1) a priority security interest claimed by Mercury Marine Acceptance Corporation; (2) ITT’s subordination to Great Lakes Ban-corp with respect to the Debtor’s parts and accessories inventory to the extent not attached to or packaged with any boat, motor, or trailer; and (3)…”
Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Dep't of State, 444 N.W.2d 786 (Mich. 1989). “1 See MCL 440.9312(3); MSA 19.9312(3) (UCC 9-312[3]).”
August v. Poznanski, 174 N.W.2d 807 (Mich. 1970). · cites it 2× “Further, the code provides that such perfection of the security interest establishes the mortgagee’s priority rights to those chattels (MCLA §440.9312 [5] [b] [Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19.”
Litwiller Mach. & Mfg., Inc v. Nbd Alpena Bank, 457 N.W.2d 163 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “Under MCL 440.9312; MSA 19.9312, therefore, defendant’s perfected security interest in the components had priority over plaintiffs unperfected security interest.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9312(3) — 4 cases
Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Hoerner (In Re Grand Valley Sport & Marine, Inc.), 143 B.R. 840 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1992). “r: (1) a priority security interest claimed by Mercury Marine Acceptance Corporation; (2) ITT’s subordination to Great Lakes Ban-corp with respect to the Debtor’s parts and accessories inventory to the extent not attached to or packaged with any boat, motor, or trailer; and (3)…”
Yamaha Motor Corp., USA v. Tri-City Motors & Sports, Inc., 429 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “9402, 23 MCLA 467-468, and by being a "pure race” statute (except under certain enumerated circumstances), see MCL 440.9312; MSA 19.9312; White & Summers, supra, § 25-4, p 906.”
Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Dep't of State, 444 N.W.2d 786 (Mich. 1989). “1 See MCL 440.9312(3); MSA 19.9312(3) (UCC 9-312[3]).”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Detroit Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 262 N.W.2d 831 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9312(3)(a) — 1 case
Yamaha Motor Corp., USA v. Tri-City Motors & Sports, Inc., 429 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “9402, 23 MCLA 467-468, and by being a "pure race” statute (except under certain enumerated circumstances), see MCL 440.9312; MSA 19.9312; White & Summers, supra, § 25-4, p 906.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9312(4) — 3 cases
Fan-Gil Corp. v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp., 211 N.W.2d 561 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).
Nauman v. First Nat'l Bank, 212 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).
Nat. Bank of Detroit v. Eames & Brown, Inc., 213 N.W.2d 573 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9312(5) — 5 cases
NBD-Sandusky Bank v. Ritter, 446 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “The trial court found that John Deere Company's purchase money security interest in two pieces of farm equipment was not perfected within twenty days after the debtor received possession of the equipment, so it was subordinate to NBD's prior perfected security interest in the…”
NBD-Sandusky Bank v. Ritter, 471 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. 1991). “Thus, since John Deere’s perfected security interest failed to qualify for special priority status under MCL 440.9312(5); MSA 19.9312(5), the Court of Appeals held nbd’s security interest in the same collateral by virtue of its "after-acquired property” clause *357 had priority.”
In RE v. Pangori & Sons, Inc., 53 B.R. 711 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1985). “§ 110 (c), repealed] and Mich. Comp.Laws § 440.9312(5); Mich.Stat.”
Thorp Fin. Corp. v. Ken Hodgins & Sons, 251 N.W.2d 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “9204(1) and the March 20, 1974 note incorporated by reference the 1971 security agreement into the 1974 loan.”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Detroit Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 262 N.W.2d 831 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9312(5)(a) — 1 case
Thorp Fin. Corp. v. Ken Hodgins & Sons, 251 N.W.2d 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “9204(1) and the March 20, 1974 note incorporated by reference the 1971 security agreement into the 1974 loan.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9312(6) — 5 cases
Yamaha Motor Corp., USA v. Tri-City Motors & Sports, Inc., 429 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “9402, 23 MCLA 467-468, and by being a "pure race” statute (except under certain enumerated circumstances), see MCL 440.9312; MSA 19.9312; White & Summers, supra, § 25-4, p 906.”
Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “See also Example 2 to MCL 440.9312 (“Whichever secured party first perfects his interest (by taking possession of the collateral or by filing) takes priority and it makes no difference whether or not he knows of the other interest at the time he perfects his own.”
NBD-Sandusky Bank v. Ritter, 471 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. 1991). “Thus, since John Deere’s perfected security interest failed to qualify for special priority status under MCL 440.9312(5); MSA 19.9312(5), the Court of Appeals held nbd’s security interest in the same collateral by virtue of its "after-acquired property” clause *357 had priority.”
NBD-Sandusky Bank v. Ritter, 446 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “The trial court found that John Deere Company's purchase money security interest in two pieces of farm equipment was not perfected within twenty days after the debtor received possession of the equipment, so it was subordinate to NBD's prior perfected security interest in the…”
Warner v. Tarver, 405 N.W.2d 109 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9312(6)(a) — 1 case
Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “See also Example 2 to MCL 440.9312 (“Whichever secured party first perfects his interest (by taking possession of the collateral or by filing) takes priority and it makes no difference whether or not he knows of the other interest at the time he perfects his own.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9312(6)(b) — 1 case
Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “See also Example 2 to MCL 440.9312 (“Whichever secured party first perfects his interest (by taking possession of the collateral or by filing) takes priority and it makes no difference whether or not he knows of the other interest at the time he perfects his own.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9312(7) — 1 case
Yamaha Motor Corp., USA v. Tri-City Motors & Sports, Inc., 429 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “9402, 23 MCLA 467-468, and by being a "pure race” statute (except under certain enumerated circumstances), see MCL 440.9312; MSA 19.9312; White & Summers, supra, § 25-4, p 906.”
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.