(a) "Value." - In this section, "value" has the meaning provided in G.S. 25-3-303(a).
(b) Agreement not to assert claim or defense. - Except as otherwise provided in this section, an agreement between an account debtor and an assignor not to assert against an assignee any claim or defense that the account debtor may have against the assignor is enforceable by an assignee that takes an assignment:
(1) For value;
(2) In good faith;
(3) Without notice of a claim of a property or possessory right to the property assigned; and
(4) Without notice of a defense or claim in recoupment of the type that may be asserted against a person entitled to enforce a negotiable instrument under G.S. 25-3-305(a).
(c) When subsection (b) not applicable. - Subsection (b) of this section does not apply to defenses of a type that may be asserted against a holder in due course of a negotiable instrument under G.S. 25-3-305(b).
(d) Omission of required statement in consumer transaction. - In a consumer transaction, if a record evidences the account debtor's obligation, law other than this Article requires that the record include a statement to the effect that the rights of an assignee are subject to claims or defenses that the account debtor could assert against the original obligee, and the record does not include such a statement:
(1) The record has the same effect as if the record included such a statement; and
(2) The account debtor may assert against an assignee those claims and defenses that would have been available if the record included such a statement.
(e) Rule for individual under other law. - This section is subject to law other than this Article which establishes a different rule for an account debtor who is an individual and who incurred the obligation primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
(f) Other law not displaced. - Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d) of this section, this section does not displace law other than this Article which gives effect to an agreement by an account debtor not to assert a claim or defense against an assignee. (1965, c. 700, s. 1; 1975, c. 862, s. 7; 2000-169, s. 1.)
Notes of Decisions
Provident Fin. Co. v. Beneficial Fin. Co., 245 S.E.2d 510 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “would be effective under the five year life provided in § G.S. 25-9-403 . . . .” G.S. 25-9-404 (now amended).”
Mosley v. Nat'l Fin. Co., Inc., 243 S.E.2d 145 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).
“G.S. 25-9-403. The non-filing insurance charge of 60 cents is beneficial to the borrower in the sense that he enjoys a net savings of $1.”
Ferguson v. Morgan, 191 S.E.2d 817 (N.C. 1972).
· cites it 2× “” The Official Comment and the North Carolina Comment are to the effect that, contrary to the rule under prior law, subsection (1) of G.S. 25-9-403 provides that the security instrument serves as constructive notice from the time of filing, i.”
United States v. Pete Brown Enter., Inc., 328 F. Supp. 600 (N.D. Miss. 1971).
“Since the financing statement did not state a maturity date of the obligation it secured, it was effective for a period of five years from the date of its filing, or until September 18, 1972 (N.C.G.S. § 25-9-403). The filed statement, which recited that it covered the “crops,…”
Hassell v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 254 S.E.2d 768 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).
“Here, plaintiff seeks to maintain his priority by virtue of the judgment against the debtor Seacrest, not by judgment against defendant bank. We hold the lien by levy pursuant to judgment does not relate back to the filing date of the financing statement when the security…”
In re Mills, 39 B.R. 564 (E.D.N.C. 1984).
“§ 25-9-403(2). CONCLUSIONS OF FACT AND LAW The October 9, 1981, promissory note executed by the debtors contained no reference to the deeds of trust executed October 22, 1974, and November 2, 1979.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-9-403(2) — 4 cases
Hassell v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 254 S.E.2d 768 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).
“Here, plaintiff seeks to maintain his priority by virtue of the judgment against the debtor Seacrest, not by judgment against defendant bank. We hold the lien by levy pursuant to judgment does not relate back to the filing date of the financing statement when the security…”
In re Mills, 39 B.R. 564 (E.D.N.C. 1984).
“§ 25-9-403(2). CONCLUSIONS OF FACT AND LAW The October 9, 1981, promissory note executed by the debtors contained no reference to the deeds of trust executed October 22, 1974, and November 2, 1979.”
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.