Okla. Stat. » Title 12A — UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-203 (2026)

Repealed by Laws 2000, c. 371, § 185, eff. July 1,

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

2001.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1971–2004 · leading case: First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Stillwater v. McKown, 867 P.2d 1342 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Stillwater v. McKown, 867 P.2d 1342 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “The enforceability of the agreement requires us to examine 12A O.S. 1991 § 9-203(1) and determine whether McKown's letter is sufficient as a security agreement as a matter of law.”
Shebester v. Triple Crown Insurers, 826 P.2d 603 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 2× “The formal requisites of a security interest are set out at 12A O.S.Supp. 1984 § 9-203; its pertinent terms are: "(1) .”
Fairview State Bank v. Edwards, 739 P.2d 994 (Okla. 1987). · cites it 5× “The formal requirements for the attachment of a security interest are set out in 12A O.S.Supp.1984, § 9-203, 2 which provides in pertinent part: “(1) .”
Harris v. Beneficial Oklahoma, Inc. (In Re Harris), 209 B.R. 990 (10th Cir. BAP 1997). “Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-203(l)(a). The testimony of Mr.”
Morton Booth Co. v. Tiara Furniture, Inc., 564 P.2d 210 (Okla. 1977). “12A O.S.1971, § 9-203(1). Booth argues and the Court of Appeals held that there was no “agreement” between Banks and Tiara that the security interest of Banks attach “to the raw materials owned by Morton Booth.”
Valmont Equip. Co. v. Great Basin Transp., Inc. (In Re Great Basin Transp., Inc.), 32 B.R. 365 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1983). · cites it 3× “12A O.S.1981 § 9-203. It is the first provision which is at issue in this litigation.”
Sw. State Bank v. Ellis (In Re Ellis), 310 B.R. 762 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2004). · cites it 2× “See 12A O.S. § 9-203(1) (repealed and superseded by Revised Article 9, ef *766 fective July 1, 2001).”
Mather v. Northfield Freezing Sys., Inc. (In Re S. Star Foods, Inc.), 202 B.R. 784 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. 1996). · cites it 3× “§ 1-201(37), said “lease” is not enforceable as a security agreement under 12A O.S. § 9-203(l)(a). That statute provides in pertinent part that “a security interest is not enforceable .”
Blair v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 935 P.2d 1197 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “12A O.S.1991 § 9-203. As the federal court in Burrus v.”
Stromblad v. Wilderness Adventurer, Inc., 577 P.2d 918 (Okla. Civ. App. 1978). “Under 12A O.S.1971, § 9-203 the alleged security interest in the stock would be unenforceable in the light of the uncon-troverted fact that the intervenor stated in a deposition that plaintiff executed no written security agreement pursuant to this transaction.”
Williams v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Vinita, 482 P.2d 595 (Okla. 1971). “Williams makes one argument which does appear to merit some comment, and that is, that subordination agreements, *597 in however informal, should still at least be writing, especially since the financing statements of the very security interests being subordinated thereby are…”
In Re Trotter, 264 B.R. 216 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2001). “Under Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 12A, § 9-203(1) a security interest attaches when the debtor has signed a security agreement describing the collateral, value has been given, and the debt- or has rights in the collateral.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-203(1) — 7 cases
Morton Booth Co. v. Tiara Furniture, Inc., 564 P.2d 210 (Okla. 1977). “12A O.S.1971, § 9-203(1). Booth argues and the Court of Appeals held that there was no “agreement” between Banks and Tiara that the security interest of Banks attach “to the raw materials owned by Morton Booth.”
Sw. State Bank v. Ellis (In Re Ellis), 310 B.R. 762 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2004). “See 12A O.S. § 9-203(1) (repealed and superseded by Revised Article 9, ef *766 fective July 1, 2001).”
First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Stillwater v. McKown, 867 P.2d 1342 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). “The enforceability of the agreement requires us to examine 12A O.S. 1991 § 9-203(1) and determine whether McKown's letter is sufficient as a security agreement as a matter of law.”
Fairview State Bank v. Edwards, 739 P.2d 994 (Okla. 1987). “The formal requirements for the attachment of a security interest are set out in 12A O.S.Supp.1984, § 9-203, 2 which provides in pertinent part: “(1) .”
Williams v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Vinita, 482 P.2d 595 (Okla. 1971). “Williams makes one argument which does appear to merit some comment, and that is, that subordination agreements, *597 in however informal, should still at least be writing, especially since the financing statements of the very security interests being subordinated thereby are…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-203(1)(a) — 2 cases
First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Stillwater v. McKown, 867 P.2d 1342 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). “The enforceability of the agreement requires us to examine 12A O.S. 1991 § 9-203(1) and determine whether McKown's letter is sufficient as a security agreement as a matter of law.”
Whelan v. Midland Mortg. Co., 591 P.2d 287 (Okla. 1978).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-203(3) — 1 case
Fairview State Bank v. Edwards, 739 P.2d 994 (Okla. 1987). “The formal requirements for the attachment of a security interest are set out in 12A O.S.Supp.1984, § 9-203, 2 which provides in pertinent part: “(1) .”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-203(l)(a) — 4 cases
Harris v. Beneficial Oklahoma, Inc. (In Re Harris), 209 B.R. 990 (10th Cir. BAP 1997). “Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-203(l)(a). The testimony of Mr.”
First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Stillwater v. McKown, 867 P.2d 1342 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). “The enforceability of the agreement requires us to examine 12A O.S. 1991 § 9-203(1) and determine whether McKown's letter is sufficient as a security agreement as a matter of law.”
Mather v. Northfield Freezing Sys., Inc. (In Re S. Star Foods, Inc.), 202 B.R. 784 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. 1996). “§ 1-201(37), said “lease” is not enforceable as a security agreement under 12A O.S. § 9-203(l)(a). That statute provides in pertinent part that “a security interest is not enforceable .”
Whelan v. Midland Mortg. Co., 591 P.2d 287 (Okla. 1978).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-203(l)(b) — 1 case
DWG, INC. v. Peltier, 563 P.2d 152 (Okla. 1977).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-203(l)(c) — 1 case
Ralls & Assocs., Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. (In re Ralls & Assocs., Inc.), 114 B.R. 744 (W.D. Okla. 1990).
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.