Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402 (2026)
Secured party not obligated on contract of debtor or in tort
✓ current as of May 2026
The existence of a security interest, agricultural lien, or authority given to a debtor to dispose of or use collateral, without more, does not subject a secured party to liability in contract or tort for the debtor's acts or omissions.
Acts 2000, ch. 846, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases, 1972–2011 · leading case: Am. City Bank of Tullahoma v. W. Auto Supply Co., 631 S.W.2d 410 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).
Am. City Bank of Tullahoma v. W. Auto Supply Co., 631 S.W.2d 410 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). “*414 The trial judge, without intervention of a jury, held that the defendant’s financing statement did not comply with the requirements of T.C.A. § 47-9-402. 3 He said: . . . [S]aid filing does not constitute a sufficient filing of said financing statement inasmuch as it…”
C & J Leasing Corp. v. Waldschmidt (In Re Goolsby), 284 B.R. 638 (M.D. Tenn. 2002). “THE FINANCING STATEMENT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH T.C.A. § 47-9-402 For the reasons discussed below, the court finds that C & J’s UCC-1 was ineffective because it did not meet the requirements of § 47-9^402.”
Whirlpool Corp. v. Plad, Inc. (In Re Plad, Inc.), 24 B.R. 676 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1982). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-9-402 comment 2 (1979).”
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ken Gardner Ford Sales, Inc. (In Re Ken Gardner Ford Sales, Inc.), 10 B.R. 632 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1981). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402 (Repl.Vol.1979).”
Bell v. AmeriTrust Co. (In Re Moore), 21 B.R. 898 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1982). “T.C.A. § 47-9-402 is the applicable statute in this controversy.”
Brown v. Belarus Mach., Inc. (In Re Serv. Lawn & Power, Inc.), 83 B.R. 515 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1988). “Specifically, the trustee argues that the financing statements do not properly list the debtor’s name and are not signed by the debtor as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402 (Supp.1987) This is a core proceeding.”
Coble Sys., Inc. v. Coors of the Cumberland, Inc. (In Re Coors of the Cumberland, Inc.), 19 B.R. 313 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1982). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-9-402(5). The notation of Coble as owner rather than secured party on the certificate of titles would not be seriously misleading.”
Regions Bank v. Bric Constructors, LLC, f/k/a Bric Contractors, LLC, & Patricia McIntosh, 380 S.W.3d 740 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “1983) (quoting comment 2 of Section 47-9-402 (1979)). For these reasons and for the reasons stated by the trial court, we affirm the trial court’s holding that the Bank had a valid security interest in the Excavator and that the security interest held had been properly perfected.”
Farmer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC (In Re Snelson), 330 B.R. 643 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2005). “The Uniform Commercial Code standard with respect to mistakes, that “[a] financing statement substantially complying with the requirements of this section is effective even though it contains minor errors which are not seriously misleading,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402 (8)…”
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ken Gardner Ford Sales, Inc. (In Re Ken Gardner Ford Sales, Inc.), 23 B.R. 743 (E.D. Tenn. 1982). “The sworn statement is not a part of the public record and a financing statement need not state the amount of the secured debt, TCA § 47-9-402(1). However, the amount of tax paid does show on the continuation statement, in this case $1,248.”
In Re White, 51 B.R. 514 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1985). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-9-402 (1979). I The facts are stipulated.”
Newton v. First Am. Nat'l Bank (In Re Webb), 106 B.R. 517 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1989). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-9-402(8) (Supp.1988).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402(1) — 9 cases
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ken Gardner Ford Sales, Inc. (In Re Ken Gardner Ford Sales, Inc.), 10 B.R. 632 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1981). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402 (Repl.Vol.1979).”
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ken Gardner Ford Sales, Inc. (In Re Ken Gardner Ford Sales, Inc.), 23 B.R. 743 (E.D. Tenn. 1982). “The sworn statement is not a part of the public record and a financing statement need not state the amount of the secured debt, TCA § 47-9-402(1). However, the amount of tax paid does show on the continuation statement, in this case $1,248.”
Brown v. Belarus Mach., Inc. (In Re Serv. Lawn & Power, Inc.), 83 B.R. 515 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1988). “Specifically, the trustee argues that the financing statements do not properly list the debtor’s name and are not signed by the debtor as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402 (Supp.1987) This is a core proceeding.”
First State Bank v. Morristown Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. (In Re Morristown Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.), 27 B.R. 801 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1983).
C & J Leasing Corp. v. Waldschmidt (In Re Goolsby), 284 B.R. 638 (M.D. Tenn. 2002). “THE FINANCING STATEMENT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH T.C.A. § 47-9-402 For the reasons discussed below, the court finds that C & J’s UCC-1 was ineffective because it did not meet the requirements of § 47-9^402.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402(3) — 1 case
Walker v. Tennessee State Bank (In Re Williams), 112 B.R. 913 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1990).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402(4) — 1 case
Am. City Bank of Tullahoma v. W. Auto Supply Co., 631 S.W.2d 410 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). “*414 The trial judge, without intervention of a jury, held that the defendant’s financing statement did not comply with the requirements of T.C.A. § 47-9-402. 3 He said: . . . [S]aid filing does not constitute a sufficient filing of said financing statement inasmuch as it…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402(5) — 4 cases
Coble Sys., Inc. v. Coors of the Cumberland, Inc. (In Re Coors of the Cumberland, Inc.), 19 B.R. 313 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1982). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-9-402(5). The notation of Coble as owner rather than secured party on the certificate of titles would not be seriously misleading.”
Bell v. AmeriTrust Co. (In Re Moore), 21 B.R. 898 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1982). “T.C.A. § 47-9-402 is the applicable statute in this controversy.”
Walker v. Tennessee State Bank (In Re Williams), 112 B.R. 913 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1990).
McLemore v. Farmers Home Admin. (In re Davis), 43 B.R. 629 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1984).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402(7) — 2 cases
Brown v. Belarus Mach., Inc. (In Re Serv. Lawn & Power, Inc.), 83 B.R. 515 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1988). “Specifically, the trustee argues that the financing statements do not properly list the debtor’s name and are not signed by the debtor as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402 (Supp.1987) This is a core proceeding.”
First Cmty. Bank v. Jones (In Re Silver Dollar, LLC), 388 B.R. 317 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2008).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402(8) — 6 cases
C & J Leasing Corp. v. Waldschmidt (In Re Goolsby), 284 B.R. 638 (M.D. Tenn. 2002). “THE FINANCING STATEMENT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH T.C.A. § 47-9-402 For the reasons discussed below, the court finds that C & J’s UCC-1 was ineffective because it did not meet the requirements of § 47-9^402.”
Newton v. First Am. Nat'l Bank (In Re Webb), 106 B.R. 517 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1989). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-9-402(8) (Supp.1988).”
Brown v. Belarus Mach., Inc. (In Re Serv. Lawn & Power, Inc.), 83 B.R. 515 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1988). “Specifically, the trustee argues that the financing statements do not properly list the debtor’s name and are not signed by the debtor as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402 (Supp.1987) This is a core proceeding.”
Schulman v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In Re Leach), 206 B.R. 903 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1997).
First Cmty. Bank v. Jones (In Re Silver Dollar, LLC), 388 B.R. 317 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2008).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-402(l) — 1 case
C & J Leasing Corp. v. Waldschmidt (In Re Goolsby), 284 B.R. 638 (M.D. Tenn. 2002). “THE FINANCING STATEMENT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH T.C.A. § 47-9-402 For the reasons discussed below, the court finds that C & J’s UCC-1 was ineffective because it did not meet the requirements of § 47-9^402.”
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.