Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 104 - UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE—ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9104

Control of deposit account

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 104.9104  Control of deposit account.

      1.  A secured party has control of a deposit account if:

      (a) The secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained;

      (b) The debtor, secured party and bank have agreed in a signed record that the bank will comply with instructions originated by the secured party directing disposition of the funds in the deposit account without further consent by the debtor;

      (c) The secured party becomes the bank’s customer with respect to the deposit account; or

      (d) Another person, other than the debtor:

             (1) Has control of the deposit account and acknowledges that it has control on behalf of the secured party; or

             (2) Obtains control of the deposit account after having acknowledged that it will obtain control of the deposit account on behalf of the secured party.

      2.  A secured party that has satisfied subsection 1 has control, even if the debtor retains the right to direct the disposition of funds from the deposit account.

      (Added to NRS by 1999, 292; A 2001, 719; 2023, 3204)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1974–1991 · leading case: Board of Trustees of the Vacation Trust Carpenters Local No. 1780 v. Durable Developers, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Board of Trustees of the Vacation Trust Carpenters Local No. 1780 v. Durable Developers, Inc. (1986) nev · cites it 4× “Except as otherwise provided in NRS 104.9104 on excluding transactions, this article applies: (a) To any transaction (regardless of its form) which is intended to create a security interest in personal property or fixtures including goods, documents, instruments, general…”
Valley Bank of Nevada v. City of Henderson (1981) nvd · cites it 3× ““a transfer of a right to payment under a contract to an assignee who is also to do the performance under the contract,” NRS 104.9104(6) illustrates that an assignment under which the payment of an outstanding loan is effectuated by a direct payment from the debtor to the…”
Iama Corp. v. Wham (1983) nev · cites it 2× “NRS 104.9104 enumerates those transactions which are expressly excluded from coverage under Nevada’s version of Article Nine.”
NEVADA R. & S. CO. v. United States Dept. of Treasury IRS (1974) nvd · cites it 2× “, the IRS notes that although that article does not apply to an assignment of contract rights for the purpose of collection only or to an assignment of such rights where the assignee is also to perform under the contract (NRS § 104.9104(6)), it does apply to: “ .”
Ketcham v. United States (1991) nvd “This was a sale of a partnership interest, not an account. Even if it could be characterized as Mr.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9104(10) — 1 case
Iama Corp. v. Wham (1983) nev “NRS 104.9104 enumerates those transactions which are expressly excluded from coverage under Nevada’s version of Article Nine.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9104(6) — 4 cases
Board of Trustees of the Vacation Trust Carpenters Local No. 1780 v. Durable Developers, Inc. (1986) nev “Except as otherwise provided in NRS 104.9104 on excluding transactions, this article applies: (a) To any transaction (regardless of its form) which is intended to create a security interest in personal property or fixtures including goods, documents, instruments, general…”
Valley Bank of Nevada v. City of Henderson (1981) nvd ““a transfer of a right to payment under a contract to an assignee who is also to do the performance under the contract,” NRS 104.9104(6) illustrates that an assignment under which the payment of an outstanding loan is effectuated by a direct payment from the debtor to the…”
NEVADA R. & S. CO. v. United States Dept. of Treasury IRS (1974) nvd “, the IRS notes that although that article does not apply to an assignment of contract rights for the purpose of collection only or to an assignment of such rights where the assignee is also to perform under the contract (NRS § 104.9104(6)), it does apply to: “ .”
Ketcham v. United States (1991) nvd “This was a sale of a partnership interest, not an account. Even if it could be characterized as Mr.”
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.