Okla. Stat. tit. 12A § 1-9-326

Current through Laws 2024, c. 453.

Section 1-9-326 - Priority of security interests created by new debtor

(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, a security interest that is created by a new debtor in collateral in which the new debtor has or acquires rights and perfected by a filed financing statement that would be ineffective to perfect the security interest but for the application of Section 1-9-508 of this title or Section 1-9-508 and paragraph (l) of subsection (i) of Section 1-9-316 of this title is subordinate to a security interest in the same collateral which is perfected other than by such a filed financing statement.

(b) The other provisions of this part determine the priority among conflicting security interests in the same collateral perfected by filed financing statements described in subsection (a) of this section. However, if the security agreements to which a new debtor became bound as debtor were not entered into by the same original debtor, the conflicting security interests rank according to priority in time of the new debtor's having become bound.

Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 1-9-326

Amended by Laws 2015 , c. 374, s. 7, eff. 11/1/2015.

Added by Laws 2000 , SB 1519, c. 371, § 53, eff. 7/1/2001.

Oklahoma Code Comment

Rules are established for determining priority when the debtor acquires collateral subject to a security interest and then grants an additional security interest and when a debtor who has granted a security interest acquires property covered by a security interest and becomes bound by that interest (as in a merger or purchase and assumption). There are companion provisions governing effectiveness of the security agreement ( section 9-203(d) ) and the financing statement ( section 9-508).

These provisions change the law in most jurisdictions, by permitting the security interest to be enforced against certain transferees of the collateral (and creditors of that transferee), even as to after-acquired collateral acquired by the transferee and even if the transferee and even if the transferee has not signed the security agreement. In Oklahoma, however, these revisions essentially codify Union National Bank of Chandler v. BancFirst (Seminole), 871 P.2d 422 (Okla. 1993); see generally William E. Carroll and Alvin C. Harrell, Article 9 Filings: Russian Roulette B UCC Style, 52 Consumer Fin. L.Q. Rep. 338 (1998).