The definition of a security interest in the Uniform Commercial Code appears to be a codification of the long standing common law principle that in order for a creditor to have lien rights in the property of a debtor, the creditor must hold an enforceable obligation against the debtor. See Sobel v. Mutual Development Inc., 313 So.2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Vance v. Fields, 172 So.2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Progressive Builders, Inc. v. Florida Wide Developers, Inc., 142 So.2d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).          Because Rose has no enforceable obligation against the debtor, any security interest which Rose may otherwise have in the certificates of deposit is invalid and cannot be given effect by this Court.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 142 So.2d 122.