Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-105 (2026)
Control of electronic chattel paper
✓ current as of July 2026
- (a) A secured party has control of electronic chattel paper if a system employed for evidencing the transfer of interests in the chattel paper reliably establishes the secured party as the person to which the chattel paper was assigned.
- (b) A system satisfies subsection (a) if the record or records comprising the chattel paper are created, stored, and assigned in such a manner that:
- (1) A single authoritative copy of the record or records exists which is unique, identifiable and, except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), unalterable;
- (2) The authoritative copy identifies the secured party as the assignee of the record or records;
- (3) The authoritative copy is communicated to and maintained by the secured party or its designated custodian;
- (4) Copies or amendments that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy can be made only with the consent of the secured party;
- (5) Each copy of the authoritative copy and any copy of a copy is readily identifiable as a copy that is not the authoritative copy; and
- (6) Any amendment of the authoritative copy is readily identifiable as authorized or unauthorized.
Former 1972 Code § 75-9-105 [Codes, 1942, § 41A:9-105; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 9-105; Laws, 1977, ch. 452, § 8; Laws, 1978, ch. 356, § 1; Laws, 1990, ch. 384, § 48; Laws, 1996, ch. 460, § 23; Laws, 1996, ch. 468, § 57] is now found in comparable provisions enacted at § 75-9-102 by Laws, 2001, ch. 495, § 1. Present § 75-9-105 derived from 1972 Code § 75-8-106 [Laws, 1996, ch. 468, § 7] and was enacted by Laws, 2001, ch. 495, § 1, eff. 1/1/2002.
Amended by Laws, 2013, ch. 451, SB 2609, 4, eff. 7/1/2013.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1975–2016 · leading case: Guar. Bank & Trust Co. v. Agrex, Incorporat, 820 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2016).
Guar. Bank & Trust Co. v. Agrex, Incorporat, 820 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2016). “Similarly, we need not address whether the district court erred when it explained that Guaranty is entitled to the full value of the crops because the contracts between Walker and FGDI concerned crops that were future goods under Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-105 and that an interest…”
Murray v. Payne, 437 So. 2d 47 (Miss. 1983). “1982) provides: Each provision of this chapter [Article 9] with regard to rights, obligations and remedies applies whether title to collateral is in the secured party or in the debtor. While this provision was originally inserted into the UCC to obliterate formalistic…”
Eac Credit Corp. v. E. L. King, Jess Porter & Joyce Porter, 507 F.2d 1232 (5th Cir. 1975). “” Chattel paper is defined in Section 9 — 105, Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-105, to mean “a writing or writings which evidence both a monetary obligation and a security interest in or a lease of specific goods.”
Mississippi Bank v. Nickles & Wells Constr. Co., 421 So. 2d 1056 (Miss. 1982). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-106 , supra. Nickles & Wells was an "account debtor.”
Jesco, Inc. v. Jeffreys Steel Co., Inc., 571 F. Supp. 801 (N.D. Miss. 1983). “§ 75-9-105(l)(d) (1972) makes it clear that the “debtor” to which § 75-9-103(3)(b) refers is “the person who owes payment or other performance of the obligation secured;” in the instant case, Great Dominion, a North Carolina corporation, and *803 not the account debtor, Jesco, a…”
Blalock v. United States, 695 F. Supp. 874 (N.D. Miss. 1988). “§ 75-1-201(30) to include “an individual or an organization,” and “organization” is defined by Miss.”
U.S. Small Bus. Admin. v. Guar. Bank & Trust Co., 874 F.2d 997 (5th Cir. 1989). “12 The bank draws support for its argument from Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-105 (1972), which states in pertinent part: (1) In this chapter unless the context otherwise requires: (d) “Debtor” means the person who owes payment or other performance of the obligation secured, whether or…”
Guar. Bank & Trust Co. v. Agrex, Incorporat (5th Cir. 2016). “Similarly, we need not address whether the district court erred when it explained that Guaranty is entitled to the full value of the crops because the contracts between Walker and FGDI concerned crops that were future goods under Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-105 and that an interest…”
United States v. Bryant, 628 F. Supp. 1444 (N.D. Miss. 1986). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-105 (d) (1972) defines “debtor” as including one “who owes payment or other performance of the obligation secured, whether or not he owns or has rights in the collateral____” Id.”
First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Trustmark Nat'l Bank, 157 F. Supp. 2d 706 (S.D. Miss. 2000). “See also Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-105(l)(h), § 75-9-105(l)(i) and § 75-9-106 (expressly excluding investment property from definitions of "goods,” "instruments” and "general intangibles”).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-105(d) — 1 case
United States v. Bryant, 628 F. Supp. 1444 (N.D. Miss. 1986). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-105 (d) (1972) defines “debtor” as including one “who owes payment or other performance of the obligation secured, whether or not he owns or has rights in the collateral____” Id.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-105(l)(a) — 1 case
Jesco, Inc. v. Jeffreys Steel Co., Inc., 571 F. Supp. 801 (N.D. Miss. 1983). “§ 75-9-105(l)(d) (1972) makes it clear that the “debtor” to which § 75-9-103(3)(b) refers is “the person who owes payment or other performance of the obligation secured;” in the instant case, Great Dominion, a North Carolina corporation, and *803 not the account debtor, Jesco, a…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-105(l)(d) — 1 case
Jesco, Inc. v. Jeffreys Steel Co., Inc., 571 F. Supp. 801 (N.D. Miss. 1983). “§ 75-9-105(l)(d) (1972) makes it clear that the “debtor” to which § 75-9-103(3)(b) refers is “the person who owes payment or other performance of the obligation secured;” in the instant case, Great Dominion, a North Carolina corporation, and *803 not the account debtor, Jesco, a…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-105(l)(h) — 1 case
First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Trustmark Nat'l Bank, 157 F. Supp. 2d 706 (S.D. Miss. 2000). “See also Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-105(l)(h), § 75-9-105(l)(i) and § 75-9-106 (expressly excluding investment property from definitions of "goods,” "instruments” and "general intangibles”).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-105(l)(m) — 1 case
Blalock v. United States, 695 F. Supp. 874 (N.D. Miss. 1988). “§ 75-1-201(30) to include “an individual or an organization,” and “organization” is defined by Miss.”
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.