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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9313

Possession by or delivery to secured party perfecting security interest without filing.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.9313 Possession by or delivery to secured party perfecting security interest without filing.

Sec. 9313.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a secured party may perfect a security interest in tangible negotiable documents, goods, instruments, money, or tangible chattel paper by taking possession of the collateral. A secured party may perfect a security interest in certificated securities by taking delivery of the certificated securities under section 8301.

    (2) With respect to goods covered by a certificate of title issued by this state, a secured party may perfect a security interest in the goods by taking possession of the goods only in the circumstances described in section 9316(5).

    (3) With respect to collateral other than certificated securities and goods covered by a document, a secured party takes possession of collateral in the possession of a person other than the debtor, the secured party, or a lessee of the collateral from the debtor in the ordinary course of the debtor's business, when the person in possession authenticates a record acknowledging that it holds possession of the collateral for the secured party's benefit, or the person takes possession of the collateral after having authenticated a record acknowledging that it will hold possession of collateral for the secured party's benefit.

    (4) If the perfection of a security interest depends upon possession of the collateral by a secured party, perfection occurs no earlier than the time the secured party takes possession and continues only while the secured party retains possession.

    (5) A security interest in a certificated security in registered form is perfected by delivery when delivery of the certificated security occurs under section 8301 and remains perfected by delivery until the debtor obtains possession of the security certificate.

    (6) A person in possession of collateral is not required to acknowledge that it holds possession for a secured party's benefit.

    (7) If a person acknowledges that it holds possession for the secured party's benefit, the acknowledgment is effective under subsection (3) or section 8301(1), even if the acknowledgment violates the rights of a debtor, and unless the person otherwise agrees or law other than this article otherwise provides, the person does not owe any duty to the secured party and is not required to confirm the acknowledgment to another person.

    (8) A secured party having possession of collateral does not relinquish possession by delivering the collateral to a person other than the debtor or a lessee of the collateral from the debtor in the ordinary course of the debtor's business if the person was instructed before the delivery or is instructed contemporaneously with the delivery to hold possession of the collateral for the secured party's benefit, or to redeliver the collateral to the secured party.

    (9) A secured party does not relinquish possession, even if a delivery under subsection (8) violates the rights of a debtor. A person to which collateral is delivered under subsection (8) does not owe any duty to the secured party and is not required to confirm the delivery to another person unless the person otherwise agrees or law other than this article otherwise provides.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 369, Eff. Jan. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 53, Imd. Eff. Mar. 27, 1980 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 348, Eff. July 1, 2001 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 87, Eff. July 1, 2013

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1977–2014 · leading case: Matter of Cliff's Ridge Skiing Corp.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Matter of Cliff's Ridge Skiing Corp. (1991) miwb · cites it 30× “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.9313(3). The U.”
Prime Financial Services LLC v. Vinton (2008) michctapp · cites it 2× “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.”
In Re Damon J. And Regina M. Kroskie, Debtors. James W. Boyd, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation (2003) ca6 · cites it 2× “Under Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9313 (3), the legislature specifically declares that “this article does not prevent creation of an encumbrance upon fixtures pursuant to real estate law.”
Laborers Pension Trust Fund-Detroit & Vicinity v. Interior Exterior Specialists Co. (2011) mied · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9102 (ttt). A security interest in money is perfected by taking possession.”
Boyd v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. (In Re Kroskie) (2001) miwb “§ 440.9313, its security interest in the mobile home was properly perfected with the recording of the mortgage and assignment.”
Ottaco, Inc v. Guaze (1998) michctapp “See MCL 440.9313(4)(b); MSA 19.9313(4)(b). We reject this argument because Ottaco does not possess a tax “lien.”
Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Boyd (In re Damon J.) (2001) miwd · cites it 10× “Under Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9313 (3), the legislature specifically declares that “[tjhis article does not prevent creation of an encumbrance upon fixtures pursuant to real estate law.”
Boyd v. Old Kent Bank (In Re Spaniak) (1998) miwb “” See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 440.9313(l)(a). The parties have agreed to bifurcate the fixture issue, and litigate it only in the event it becomes necessary to do so.”
In Re Kroskie (2001) miwd · cites it 7× “NOTES [1] The court notes that appellee's sweeping generalization of the scope of section 440.9313 is inaccurate. While MICH.”
Matter of Mahon Indus. Corp. (1982) mieb “§ 440.9313(5) provides in part: "A security interest in fixtures, whether or not perfected, has priority over the conflicting interest of an encumbrancer or owner of the real estate where; (a) the encumbrancer or owner has consented in writing to the security interest or has…”
Meoli v. Heartwell Mortgage Corp. (In Re Hoggard) (2005) miwb · cites it 10× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9334 (2) and Mich.”
Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Detroit Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (1977) michctapp “By an opinion dated December 23, 1974, District Judge Riker granted summary judgment in Sears’ favor upon a finding that appliances and carpeting were fixtures and, thus, the question of priority was governed by MCLA 440.9313(2); MSA 19.9313(2). Judgment of possession was…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9313(1) — 2 cases
Prime Financial Services LLC v. Vinton (2008) michctapp “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.”
Okke v. Okke (In re Okke) (2014) miwb
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9313(2) — 1 case
Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Detroit Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (1977) michctapp “By an opinion dated December 23, 1974, District Judge Riker granted summary judgment in Sears’ favor upon a finding that appliances and carpeting were fixtures and, thus, the question of priority was governed by MCLA 440.9313(2); MSA 19.9313(2). Judgment of possession was…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9313(3) — 4 cases
Matter of Cliff's Ridge Skiing Corp. (1991) miwb “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.9313(3). The U.”
In Re Kroskie (2001) miwd “NOTES [1] The court notes that appellee's sweeping generalization of the scope of section 440.9313 is inaccurate. While MICH.”
Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Boyd (In re Damon J.) (2001) miwd “Under Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9313 (3), the legislature specifically declares that “[tjhis article does not prevent creation of an encumbrance upon fixtures pursuant to real estate law.”
Meoli v. Heartwell Mortgage Corp. (In Re Hoggard) (2005) miwb “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9334 (2) and Mich.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9313(4) — 1 case
Matter of Cliff's Ridge Skiing Corp. (1991) miwb “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.9313(3). The U.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9313(4)(a) — 1 case
Matter of Cliff's Ridge Skiing Corp. (1991) miwb “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.9313(3). The U.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9313(4)(b) — 1 case
Ottaco, Inc v. Guaze (1998) michctapp “See MCL 440.9313(4)(b); MSA 19.9313(4)(b). We reject this argument because Ottaco does not possess a tax “lien.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9313(5) — 2 cases
Matter of Mahon Indus. Corp. (1982) mieb “§ 440.9313(5) provides in part: "A security interest in fixtures, whether or not perfected, has priority over the conflicting interest of an encumbrancer or owner of the real estate where; (a) the encumbrancer or owner has consented in writing to the security interest or has…”
McTevia v. Pullman, Inc. (In re Mahon Industrial Corp.) (1982) mied
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9313(7) — 1 case
Matter of Cliff's Ridge Skiing Corp. (1991) miwb “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.9313(3). The U.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9313(l)(a) — 2 cases
Matter of Cliff's Ridge Skiing Corp. (1991) miwb “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.9313(3). The U.”
Boyd v. Old Kent Bank (In Re Spaniak) (1998) miwb “” See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 440.9313(l)(a). The parties have agreed to bifurcate the fixture issue, and litigate it only in the event it becomes necessary to do so.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9313(l)(b) — 1 case
Matter of Cliff's Ridge Skiing Corp. (1991) miwb “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.9313(3). The U.”
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.