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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9709 (2026)

Priority.

✓ 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


440.9709 Priority.

Sec. 9709.

    (1) This amendatory act determines the priority of conflicting claims to collateral. However, if the relative priorities of the claims were established before this amendatory act takes effect, this article as in effect before this amendatory act takes effect determines priority.

    (2) For purposes of section 9322(1), the priority of a security interest that becomes enforceable under section 9203 of this amendatory act dates from the time this amendatory act takes effect if the security interest is perfected under this amendatory act by the filing of a financing statement before this amendatory act takes effect which would not have been effective to perfect the security interest under this article as in effect before this amendatory act takes effect. This subsection does not apply to conflicting security interests each of which is perfected by the filing of a financing statement described in this subsection.

History: Add. 2000, Act 348, Eff. July 1, 2001

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2002–2008 · leading case: In Re New Haven Foundry, Inc., 285 B.R. 646 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re New Haven Foundry, Inc., 285 B.R. 646 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2002). · cites it 4× “MCLA § 440.9709 provides: (1) This amendatory act determines the priority of conflicting claims to collateral.”
Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “” MCL 440.9709(1) (2001). Hence, to the extent that prior Article 9 apphed and estabhshed the respective priorities of the parties in the notes at issue, that priority governs the parties’ security interests.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9709(1) — 1 case
Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “” MCL 440.9709(1) (2001). Hence, to the extent that prior Article 9 apphed and estabhshed the respective priorities of the parties in the notes at issue, that priority governs the parties’ security interests.”
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.