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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9318 (2026)

No interest retained in right to payment that is sold; rights and title of seller of account or chattel paper with respect to creditors and purchasers.

✓ 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


440.9318 No interest retained in right to payment that is sold; rights and title of seller of account or chattel paper with respect to creditors and purchasers.

Sec. 9318.

    (1) A debtor that has sold an account, chattel paper, payment intangibles, or promissory note does not retain a legal or equitable interest in the collateral sold.

    (2) For purposes of determining the rights of creditors of, and purchasers for value of an account or chattel paper from, a debtor that has sold an account or chattel paper, while the buyer's security interest is unperfected, the debtor is deemed to have rights and title to the account or chattel paper identical to those the debtor sold.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 369, Eff. Jan. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 348, Eff. July 1, 2001

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Frank v. ITT Com. Fin. Corp. (In Re Thompson Boat Co.), 230 B.R. 815 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Frank v. ITT Com. Fin. Corp. (In Re Thompson Boat Co.), 230 B.R. 815 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1995). · cites it 24× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9318 (1). See In re Ehrhart, 155 B.”
In Re New Haven Foundry, Inc., 285 B.R. 646 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2002). · cites it 4× “Former MCLA § 440.9318 provides in part that the rights of an assignee are subject to: (b) any other defense or claim of the account debtor against the assignor which accrues before the account debtor receives notification of the assignment.”
Wonsey v. Life Ins. Co. of North Am., 32 F. Supp. 2d 939 (E.D. Mich. 1998). · cites it 4× “§ 440.9318(4), Michigan’s adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code’s Article 9, Section 318(4), (hereinafter “Section 9-318(4)”).”
Riley v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 36 F. App'x 194 (6th Cir. 2002). · cites it 6× “UCC Article 9 Does Not Invalidate the Anti-Assignment Clause Riley incorrectly argues that UCC § 9-318(4), as adopted by Michigan in Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9318 (4), invalidates the anti-assignment clause.”
Old Kent Bank-Se. v. City of Detroit, 444 N.W.2d 162 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “The court relied on National Shawmut Bank of Boston v New Amsterdam Casualty Co, 411 F2d 843 (CA 1, 1969). It awarded Old Kent $6,001.”
Dimmitt & Owens Fin., Inc v. Realtek Indus., Inc, 280 N.W.2d 827 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “Specifically, Realtek contends that MCL 440.9318(1); MSA 19.9318(1) precludes application of the principles of common law estoppel.”
In Re Johnson, 439 B.R. 416 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010). “Laws § 440.9318(3)). [Footnote: New York has adopted this U.”
McClarty for Fortney v. Gudenau, 176 B.R. 788 (E.D. Mich. 1995). “§ 440.9318(l)(b) (“[T]he rights of an assignee are subject to: .”
Michigan Milk Producers Ass'n v. in Re Bancroft Milk Prods., Inc. (In Re Bancroft Dairy, Inc.), 10 B.R. 920 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1981). “A notification which does not reasonably identify the rights assigned is ineffective.”
Com. Sav. Bank v. G & J Wood Prods. Co., Inc., 207 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 4× “9318(3) and, (b) Does defendant have a defense or claim against Bennington which accrued before defendant received notification of the assignment of accounts receivable? *135 MCLA 440.9318; MSA 19.9318, pertinent to decision, provides: "(1) Unless an account debtor has made an…”
D C-Spine Orthopedics Pllc v. Progressive Michigan Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Editor’s note 2 to MCL 440.9318 does state, in part, that “[t]he fact that a sale of an account .”
Stuart A. Gold, Tr. v. Benjamin O. Davis Veterns Vill. Ltd. Dividend (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2025). · cites it 2× “, Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9318 (1) (“A debtor that has sold an account, chattel paper, payment intangibles, or promissory note does not retain a legal or equitable interest in the [item(s)] sold.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9318(1) — 3 cases
Frank v. ITT Com. Fin. Corp. (In Re Thompson Boat Co.), 230 B.R. 815 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1995). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9318 (1). See In re Ehrhart, 155 B.”
Dimmitt & Owens Fin., Inc v. Realtek Indus., Inc, 280 N.W.2d 827 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “Specifically, Realtek contends that MCL 440.9318(1); MSA 19.9318(1) precludes application of the principles of common law estoppel.”
D C-Spine Orthopedics Pllc v. Progressive Michigan Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Editor’s note 2 to MCL 440.9318 does state, in part, that “[t]he fact that a sale of an account .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9318(3) — 5 cases
Old Kent Bank-Se. v. City of Detroit, 444 N.W.2d 162 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “The court relied on National Shawmut Bank of Boston v New Amsterdam Casualty Co, 411 F2d 843 (CA 1, 1969). It awarded Old Kent $6,001.”
In Re Johnson, 439 B.R. 416 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010). “Laws § 440.9318(3)). [Footnote: New York has adopted this U.”
Dimmitt & Owens Fin., Inc v. Realtek Indus., Inc, 280 N.W.2d 827 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “Specifically, Realtek contends that MCL 440.9318(1); MSA 19.9318(1) precludes application of the principles of common law estoppel.”
Michigan Milk Producers Ass'n v. in Re Bancroft Milk Prods., Inc. (In Re Bancroft Dairy, Inc.), 10 B.R. 920 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1981). “A notification which does not reasonably identify the rights assigned is ineffective.”
Com. Sav. Bank v. G & J Wood Prods. Co., Inc., 207 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “9318(3) and, (b) Does defendant have a defense or claim against Bennington which accrued before defendant received notification of the assignment of accounts receivable? *135 MCLA 440.9318; MSA 19.9318, pertinent to decision, provides: "(1) Unless an account debtor has made an…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9318(4) — 1 case
Wonsey v. Life Ins. Co. of North Am., 32 F. Supp. 2d 939 (E.D. Mich. 1998). “§ 440.9318(4), Michigan’s adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code’s Article 9, Section 318(4), (hereinafter “Section 9-318(4)”).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9318(l) — 1 case
Frank v. ITT Com. Fin. Corp. (In Re Thompson Boat Co.), 230 B.R. 815 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1995). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9318 (1). See In re Ehrhart, 155 B.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9318(l)(a) — 2 cases
Frank v. ITT Com. Fin. Corp. (In Re Thompson Boat Co.), 230 B.R. 815 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1995). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9318 (1). See In re Ehrhart, 155 B.”
In Re New Haven Foundry, Inc., 285 B.R. 646 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2002). “Former MCLA § 440.9318 provides in part that the rights of an assignee are subject to: (b) any other defense or claim of the account debtor against the assignor which accrues before the account debtor receives notification of the assignment.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9318(l)(b) — 3 cases
In Re New Haven Foundry, Inc., 285 B.R. 646 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2002). “Former MCLA § 440.9318 provides in part that the rights of an assignee are subject to: (b) any other defense or claim of the account debtor against the assignor which accrues before the account debtor receives notification of the assignment.”
McClarty for Fortney v. Gudenau, 176 B.R. 788 (E.D. Mich. 1995). “§ 440.9318(l)(b) (“[T]he rights of an assignee are subject to: .”
Com. Sav. Bank v. G & J Wood Prods. Co., Inc., 207 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “9318(3) and, (b) Does defendant have a defense or claim against Bennington which accrued before defendant received notification of the assignment of accounts receivable? *135 MCLA 440.9318; MSA 19.9318, pertinent to decision, provides: "(1) Unless an account debtor has made an…”
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.