North Dakota Century Code
N.D. Cent. Code § 35-05-04 (2026)
Security agreement not to include other personal property
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ND-LEGndlegis.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Repealed by S.L. 1997, ch. 301, § 3.
\nNotes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1986–1999 · leading case: In Re Yagow, 62 B.R. 73 (Bankr. D.N.D. 1986).
In Re Yagow, 62 B.R. 73 (Bankr. D.N.D. 1986). “N.D.Cent.Code § 35-05-04 (1980). The two PCA standard form security agreements executed between the Debtors and PCA on June 27, 1984, contain under section entitled “Description of Collateral”, a listing of seven separately denoted categories of collateral, each preceded by a…”
Kingsley v. First Am. Bank of Casselton (In Re Kingsley), 73 B.R. 767 (Bankr. D.N.D. 1987). “N.D.Cent.Code § 35-05-04 (1980). Only two reported cases exist in which courts has discussed this statute: In re Yagow, 62 B.”
First State Bank v. Moen Enter., 529 N.W.2d 887 (N.D. 1995). “They assert each security agreement covering the 1990 crop or proceeds from that crop is invalid under N.D.C.C. § 35-05-04: “Security agreement not to include other personal property.”
Prod. Credit Ass'n of Fargo v. Foss, 391 N.W.2d 622 (N.D. 1986). “The Fosses also contend that the security agreement violated Section 35-05-04, N.D.C.C., because it covered specific crops as well as other personal property.”
Prod. Credit Ass'n of Mandan v. Rub, 475 N.W.2d 532 (N.D. 1991). “Duane and Marlys answered, generally denying that they owed PCA the money and raising several defenses, including a claim that PCA’s security interest violated Section 35-05-04, N.D.C.C. The Rubs also counterclaimed for rescission and for damages for breach of contract.”
Kingsley v. First Am. Bank of Casselton (In Re Kingsley), 92 B.R. 898 (D.N.D. 1987). “N.D.Cent.Code § 35-05-04 (1980). The Appellant, and amicus curiae, assert that the government payments are merely another form of proceeds from the 1986 crops and not in violation of the North Dakota Century Code.”
Richland Nat'l Bank & Trust v. Norby (In re Norby), 96 B.R. 988 (D.N.D. 1988). “N.D.Cent.Code § 35-05-04 (1980). In the instant case Richland’s 1986 security agreement claimed an interest in specifically described crops and an interest in other personal property directly in violation of section 35-05-04.”
Sargent Cnty. Bank v. Wentworth, 434 N.W.2d 562 (N.D. 1989). “The Wentworths answered the complaint, alleging that as between an operating loan given by the Bank and another loan given by the Bank and guaranteed by the Farmers Home Administration [FmHA], the Bank had misapplied their payments, that the crop mortgages were invalid under…”
Drewes v. Lesmeister (In Re Lesmeister), 242 B.R. 920 (Bankr. D.N.D. 1999). “nnegotiable) issued for the storage of crops; all now owned or hereafter acquired accounts, chattel paper, documents, instruments, harvested farm products, entitlements and payments (whether in cash or in kind) arising under any governmental agricultural or farming programs, and…”
Drewes v. Sec. State Bank of Wishek (In Re Nies), 183 B.R. 866 (Bankr. D.N.D. 1995). “1989), were required to analyze a different statutory provision, see N.D.Cent.Code § 35-05-04 (1980), which by its express terms declared “invalid" a security agreement covering specific crops if it claimed a security interest in other personal property.”
In Re Edwardson, 74 B.R. 831 (Bankr. D.N.D. 1987). “However, the Bank’s security agreement appears to violate North Dakota Century Code § 35-05-04. Furthermore, the required element of malice, essential to a section 523(a)(6) action, appears to be lacking.”
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.