N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 25
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-9-202 (2026)

Title to collateral immaterial

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 25 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Except as otherwise provided with respect to consignments or sales of accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles, or promissory notes, the provisions of this Article with regard to rights and obligations apply whether title to collateral is in the secured party or the debtor. (1965, c. 700, s. 1; 1975, c. 862, s. 7; 2000-169, s. 1.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1974–2017 · leading case: In re Jeff Benfield Nursery, Inc., 565 B.R. 603 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Jeff Benfield Nursery, Inc., 565 B.R. 603 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2017). · cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-9-202 (“Except as otherwise provided with respect to consignments or sales of accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles, or promissory notes, the provisions of this Article with regard to rights and obligations apply whether title in collateral is in the…”
Szabo Food Serv., Inc., of North Carolina v. Balentines, Inc., 206 S.E.2d 242 (N.C. 1974). · cites it 2× “” G.S. 25-9-202 makes the title to collateral immaterial by providing, “Each provision of this article [9] with regards to rights, obligations and remedies applies whether title to collateral is in the secured party or in the debtor.”
Carter v. Holland (In Re Carraway), 65 B.R. 51 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 1986). “§ 25-9-202 (Supp.1985). The definition of security interest contained in Section 25-1-201 further provides that the reservation of title by the seller amounts only to a security interest, and therefore does not have the effect of keeping title vested in the seller.”
Montford v. Grohman, 245 S.E.2d 219 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978). “G.S. 25-9-202. Nevertheless, the result is the same.”
Moser v. Employers Com. Union Ins. Co. of Am., 212 S.E.2d 664 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975). “See G.S. 25-9-202. An encumbrance exists and coverage is explicitly excluded.”
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.