(Code 1981, §11-9-510, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1.)
Law reviews.- For article on the 1963 amendment to the Georgia Uniform Commercial Code, see 14 Mercer L. Rev. 378 (1963). For article, "The Revisions to Article IX of the Uniform Commercial Code," see 15 Ga. St. B.J. 120 (1977). For article, "H.B. 712: New Requirements for Financing Statements and Continuation Statements Filed in Georgia," see 22 Ga. St. B.J. 6 (1985). For article surveying commercial law in 1984-1985, see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 139 (1985). For article, "H.B. 1364: Revised Requirements for Financing Statements and Continuation Statements Filed in Georgia," see 23 Ga. St. B.J. 50 (1986). For annual survey of law of real property, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 319 (1986). For survey article on commercial law, see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 99 (1992).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Editor's notes.
- In the light of the similarity of the provisions, decisions under former Article 9 are included in the annotations for this Code section. For a table of comparable provisions, see the table at the beginning of the Article.
Harvested peanut crops.- Plaintiffs' filing of their financing statement in the proper county gave defendant legal notice of plaintiffs' security interests and liens in peanut crops defendant purchased, even though the clerk incorrectly recorded the financing statement, and the perfected security interests remained effective even though the crops were harvested. Bartolan, Inc. v. Columbian Peanut Co., 727 F. Supp. 1444 (M.D. Ga. 1989).
Document identified in handwriting as an "amendment," which contained a property description that varied markedly from that contained in the original financing statement and was signed by both the secured party's representative and the debtor's representative, was not merely mislabeled due to clerical error and was not legally effective as a continuation statement. Kubota Tractor Corp. v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 198 Ga. App. 830, 403 S.E.2d 218 (1991).
Filing of continuation statements.- Former subsection (3) worked to allow filing officers (Superior Court Clerks) to refuse to accept continuation statements until the last 6 months of the previous filing's effectiveness. Once the new filing is accepted, however, it is in force for a period of five years, not from the filing date of the financing statement, but from the date of the filing of the new statement, under former subsection (8). In re Rainbow Mfg. Co., 150 Bankr. 857 (M.D. Ga. 1993).
Continuation statement filed by a secured creditor prior to the six-month period set forth in former subsection (3) was effective for five years from the date of filing and extended the creditor's security interest in certain assets of the debtor beyond the original period of protection. Coats Am., Inc. v. Summit Nat'l Bank, 211 Bankr. 771 (N.D. Ga 1997).
Second financing statement considered back-up, not continuation or amendment of original.
- A second financing statement filed by the same creditor covering the same collateral could not be considered a continuation statement under this section, or an amendment to the original under former § 11-9-402 (see now § 11-9-502 et seq.), but was deemed to be a back-up financing statement with its own separately established priority, and, where the debtor's bankruptcy petition was filed while the first financing statement was still effective, creditor's first-in time priority status under the original statement was preserved. Giddens v. Pioneer Credit, 205 Bankr. 349 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1997).
Effect of fixture filing.- Under Georgia law, a fixture filing contained sufficient information to put a purchaser on notice of the existence of a bond trustee's prior unrecorded interest in the real property under an indenture, and the references in the fixture filing to the assignment and pledge of the debtor's interest would excite the attention of a purchaser and trigger the duty to inquire further into the interest held by the bond trustee. That inquiry would include an examination of the indenture that would give the purchaser notice of the bond trustee's mortgage and, thus, the mortgage lien was enforceable against a bona fide purchaser, and the mortgage lien was not avoidable under the Bankruptcy Code. Detention Mgmt., LLC v. UMB Bank, NA (In re Mun. Corr., LLC), 501 Bankr. 119 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2013).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 68A Am. Jur. 2d, Secured Transactions, §§ 310-314, 318, 405-419.
C.J.S.- 76 C.J.S., Records, § 4.
U.L.A.- Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9-510.
ALR.- Coverage of "nonrecording" or "nonfiling" insurance against loss from failure to record chattel mortgage, conditional sale, or other security instrument, 51 A.L.R.2d 325.
Effectiveness of original financing statement under UCC Article 9 after change in debtor's name, identity, or business structure, 99 A.L.R.3d 1194.