Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-705 (2026)
Effectiveness of action taken before effective date
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Pre-effective-date action; one-year perfection period unless reperfected. If action, other than the filing of a financing statement, is taken before July 1, 2001 and the action would have resulted in priority of a security interest over the rights of a person that becomes a lien creditor had the security interest become enforceable before this act takes effect, the action is effective to perfect a security interest that attaches under this act within one (1) year after July 1, 2001. An attached security interest becomes unperfected one (1) year after July 1, 2001 unless the security interest becomes a perfected security interest under this act before the expiration of that period.
- (b) Pre-effective-date filing. The filing of a financing statement before July 1, 2001 is effective to perfect a security interest to the extent the filing would satisfy the applicable requirements for perfection under this act.
- (c) Pre-effective-date filing in jurisdiction formerly governing perfection. This act does not render ineffective an effective financing statement that, before July 1, 2001, is filed and satisfies the applicable requirements for perfection under the law of the jurisdiction governing perfection as provided in former § 47-9-103. However, except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) and § 47-9-706, the financing statement ceases to be effective at the earlier of:
- (1) the time the financing statement would have ceased to be effective under the law of the jurisdiction in which it is filed; or
- (2) June 30, 2006.
- (d) Continuation statement. The filing of a continuation statement after July 1, 2001 does not continue the effectiveness of the financing statement filed before July 1, 2001. However, upon the timely filing of a continuation statement after July 1, 2001 and in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction governing perfection as provided in Part 3, the effectiveness of a financing statement filed in the same office in that jurisdiction before July 1, 2001 continues for the period provided by the law of that jurisdiction.
- (e) Application of subdivision (c)(2) to transmitting utility financing statement. Subdivision (c)(2) applies to a financing statement that, before July 1, 2001, is filed against a transmitting utility and satisfies the applicable requirements for perfection under the law of the jurisdiction governing perfection as provided in former § 47-9-103 only to the extent that Part 3 provides that the law of a jurisdiction other than the jurisdiction in which the financing statement is filed governs perfection of a security interest in collateral covered by the financing statement.
- (f) Application of Part 5. A financing statement that includes a financing statement filed before July 1, 2001 and a continuation statement filed after July 1, 2001 is effective only to the extent that it satisfies the requirements of Part 5 for an initial financing statement.
Acts 2000, ch. 846, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 2005–2005 · leading case: Mostoller v. Citicapital Com. Corp. (In Re Stetson & Assocs., Inc.), 330 B.R. 613 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2005).
Mostoller v. Citicapital Com. Corp. (In Re Stetson & Assocs., Inc.), 330 B.R. 613 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2005). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-705 (c) (2001). The Plaintiff argues that because subsection (c)(1) does not reference the “former” law of the jurisdiction in which it was filed, but rather, states that a financing statement is ineffective when it would have ceased to be effective under…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-705(c): 1 case
Mostoller v. Citicapital Com. Corp. (In Re Stetson & Assocs., Inc.), 330 B.R. 613 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2005). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-705 (c) (2001). The Plaintiff argues that because subsection (c)(1) does not reference the “former” law of the jurisdiction in which it was filed, but rather, states that a financing statement is ineffective when it would have ceased to be effective under…”
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.