Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 409.105 (2026)

Control of electronic chattel paper

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

409.105409.105 Control of electronic chattel paper.

409.105(1m)(1m) General rule: control of electronic chattel paper. A secured party has control of electronic chattel paper if a system employed for evidencing the transfer of interests in the chattel paper reliably establishes the secured party as the person to which the chattel paper was assigned.

409.105(2m)(2m) Specific facts giving control. Without limiting the generality of sub. (1m), a system satisfies sub. (1m) if the record or records comprising the chattel paper are created, stored, and assigned in such a manner that:

409.105(2m)(a)(a) A single authoritative copy of the record or records exists which is unique, identifiable, and, except as otherwise provided in pars. (d) to (f), unalterable;

409.105(2m)(b)(b) The authoritative copy identifies the secured party as the assignee of the record or records;

409.105(2m)(c)(c) The authoritative copy is communicated to and maintained by the secured party or its designated custodian;

409.105(2m)(d)(d) Copies or amendments that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy can be made only with the consent of the secured party;

409.105(2m)(e)(e) Each copy of the authoritative copy and any copy of a copy is readily identifiable as a copy that is not the authoritative copy; and

409.105(2m)(f)(f) Any amendment of the authoritative copy is readily identifiable as authorized or unauthorized.

409.105 HistoryHistory: 2001 a. 10, 416; 2011 a. 206.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1981–1995 · leading case: Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Van Kylen (In Re Van Kylen), 98 B.R. 455 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Van Kylen (In Re Van Kylen), 98 B.R. 455 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1989). · cites it 10× “The point of contention is whether the CMA is a “deposit account” within the meaning of section 409.105(l)(e), which states: (1) In this chapter unless the context otherwise requires: [[Image here]] (e) ‘Deposit account’ means a demand, time, savings, passbook or like account…”

McLaughlin v. Sec. Pac. Hous. Servs. (In Re McLaughlin), 183 B.R. 171 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1995). · cites it 2× “At its conclusion, I made a preliminary holding that SPHS’ security interest was perfected by a preferential transfer and that the ordinary course of business exception to a preferential transfer did not apply because, inter alia, there were irregularities in the transaction as…”

Nelson v. Union Nat'l Bank, 330 N.W.2d 225 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “" Section 409.105, Stats. Although I do not approve of the bank's unauthorized surrender of the insurance policy, Nelson's remedy is not under sec.”

Matter of Bindl, 13 B.R. 148 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1981). · cites it 3× “The assignment document is not a chattel paper as defined in Wis.Stat. 409.105(l)(b) nor is it an instrument as defined in Wis.”

First Wisconsin Nat'l Bank of Madison v. Stiennon (In Re Stiennon), 73 B.R. 905 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1987). “§ 409.105. When in the chain of bank collections the depository bank is in turn credited for the check it receives “proceeds” as defined in WIS.”

Fruin v. Gorden (In Re Gorden), 47 B.R. 245 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1985). “§ 409.105(l)(f) provides “goods also include the unborn young of animals and growing crops.”

Belke v. M & I First Nat'l Bank of Stevens Point, 525 N.W.2d 737 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “The trial court concluded that the certificates are instruments under § 409.105(l)(i), STATS., [U.C.C. § 9-105(l)(i)].”

In re Kienol, 44 B.R. 959 (W.D. Wis. 1984). “§ 409.105(1)© (U.C.C.— secured transactions) states “ ‘Mortgage’ means a consensual interest created by a real estate mortgage, a trust deed on real estate, or the like.”

— Wis. Stat. § 409.105(1) — 1 case

— Wis. Stat. § 409.105(l)(b) — 1 case

Matter of Bindl, 13 B.R. 148 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1981). “The assignment document is not a chattel paper as defined in Wis.Stat. 409.105(l)(b) nor is it an instrument as defined in Wis.”

— Wis. Stat. § 409.105(l)(e) — 1 case

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Van Kylen (In Re Van Kylen), 98 B.R. 455 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1989). “The point of contention is whether the CMA is a “deposit account” within the meaning of section 409.105(l)(e), which states: (1) In this chapter unless the context otherwise requires: [[Image here]] (e) ‘Deposit account’ means a demand, time, savings, passbook or like account…”

— Wis. Stat. § 409.105(l)(f) — 1 case

Fruin v. Gorden (In Re Gorden), 47 B.R. 245 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1985). “§ 409.105(l)(f) provides “goods also include the unborn young of animals and growing crops.”

— Wis. Stat. § 409.105(l)(h) — 1 case

Matter of Bindl, 13 B.R. 148 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1981). “The assignment document is not a chattel paper as defined in Wis.Stat. 409.105(l)(b) nor is it an instrument as defined in Wis.”

— Wis. Stat. § 409.105(l)(i) — 3 cases

Matter of Bindl, 13 B.R. 148 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1981). “The assignment document is not a chattel paper as defined in Wis.Stat. 409.105(l)(b) nor is it an instrument as defined in Wis.”

— Wis. Stat. § 409.105(m) — 1 case

McLaughlin v. Sec. Pac. Hous. Servs. (In Re McLaughlin), 183 B.R. 171 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1995). “At its conclusion, I made a preliminary holding that SPHS’ security interest was perfected by a preferential transfer and that the ordinary course of business exception to a preferential transfer did not apply because, inter alia, there were irregularities in the transaction as…”

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.