Connecticut General Statutes|Sec. 42a-9-316. Effect of change in governing law.

                                                

Sec. 42a-9-316. Effect of change in governing law. (a) A security interest perfected pursuant to the law of the jurisdiction designated in subdivision (1) of section 42a-9-301 or subsection (c) of section 42a-9-305 remains perfected until the earliest of:


(1) The time perfection would have ceased under the law of that jurisdiction;


(2) The expiration of four months after a change of the debtor's location to another jurisdiction; or


(3) The expiration of one year after a transfer of collateral to a person that thereby becomes a debtor and is located in another jurisdiction.


(b) If a security interest described in subsection (a) of this section becomes perfected under the law of the other jurisdiction before the earliest time or event described in that subsection, it remains perfected thereafter. If the security interest does not become perfected under the law of the other jurisdiction before the earliest time or event, it becomes unperfected and is deemed never to have been perfected as against a purchaser of the collateral for value.


(c) A possessory security interest in collateral, other than goods covered by a certificate of title and as-extracted collateral consisting of goods, remains continuously perfected if:


(1) The collateral is located in one jurisdiction and subject to a security interest perfected under the law of that jurisdiction;


(2) Thereafter the collateral is brought into another jurisdiction; and


(3) Upon entry into the other jurisdiction, the security interest is perfected under the law of the other jurisdiction.


(d) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (e) of this section, a security interest in goods covered by a certificate of title which is perfected by any method under the law of another jurisdiction when the goods become covered by a certificate of title from this state remains perfected until the security interest would have become unperfected under the law of the other jurisdiction had the goods not become so covered.


(e) A security interest described in subsection (d) of this section becomes unperfected as against a purchaser of the goods for value and is deemed never to have been perfected as against a purchaser of the goods for value if the applicable requirements for perfection under subsection (b) of section 42a-9-311 or section 42a-9-313 are not satisfied before the earlier of:


(1) The time the security interest would have become unperfected under the law of the other jurisdiction had the goods not become covered by a certificate of title from this state; or


(2) The expiration of four months after the goods had become so covered.


(f) A security interest in deposit accounts, letter-of-credit rights or investment property which is perfected under the law of the bank's jurisdiction, the issuer's jurisdiction, a nominated person's jurisdiction, the securities intermediary's jurisdiction or the commodity intermediary's jurisdiction, as applicable, remains perfected until the earlier of:


(1) The time the security interest would have become unperfected under the law of that jurisdiction; or


(2) The expiration of four months after a change of the applicable jurisdiction to another jurisdiction.


(g) If a security interest described in subsection (f) of this section becomes perfected under the law of the other jurisdiction before the earlier of the time or the end of the period described in that subsection, it remains perfected thereafter. If the security interest does not become perfected under the law of the other jurisdiction before the earlier of that time or the end of that period, it becomes unperfected and is deemed never to have been perfected as against a purchaser of the collateral for value.


(h) The following rules apply to collateral to which a security interest attaches within four months after the debtor changes its location to another jurisdiction:


(1) A financing statement filed before the change pursuant to the law of the jurisdiction designated in subdivision (1) of section 42a-9-301 or subsection (c) of section 42a-9-305 is effective to perfect a security interest in the collateral if the financing statement would have been effective to perfect a security interest in the collateral had the debtor not changed its location.


(2) If a security interest perfected by a financing statement that is effective under subdivision (1) of this subsection becomes perfected under the law of the other jurisdiction before the earlier of the time the financing statement would have become ineffective under the law of the jurisdiction designated in subdivision (1) of section 42a-9-301 or subsection (c) of section 42a-9-305 or the expiration of the four-month period, it remains perfected thereafter. If the security interest does not become perfected under the law of the other jurisdiction before the earlier time or event, it becomes unperfected and is deemed never to have been perfected as against a purchaser of the collateral for value.


(i) If a financing statement naming an original debtor is filed pursuant to the law of the jurisdiction designated in subdivision (1) of section 42a-9-301 or subsection (c) of section 42a-9-305 and the new debtor is located in another jurisdiction, the following rules apply:


(1) The financing statement is effective to perfect a security interest in collateral acquired by the new debtor before, and within four months after, the new debtor becomes bound under subsection (d) of section 42a-9-203, if the financing statement would have been effective to perfect a security interest in the collateral had the collateral been acquired by the original debtor.


(2) A security interest perfected by the financing statement and which becomes perfected under the law of the other jurisdiction before the earlier of the time the financing statement would have become ineffective under the law of the jurisdiction designated in subdivision (1) of section 42a-9-301 or subsection (c) of section 42a-9-305 or the expiration of the four-month period remains perfected thereafter. A security interest that is perfected by the financing statement but which does not become perfected under the law of the other jurisdiction before the earlier time or event becomes unperfected and is deemed never to have been perfected as against a purchaser of the collateral for value.


(1959, P.A. 133, S. 9-316; P.A. 01-132, S. 36; P.A. 11-108, S. 5.)


History: P.A. 01-132 replaced former provisions re subordination by agreement by any person entitled to priority with provisions re continued perfection of security interest following a change in governing law; P.A. 11-108 amended Subsec. (a) to delete former Subdiv. (4) re expiration of one year after new debtor located in another jurisdiction becomes bound under Sec. 42a-9-203(d), added Subsec. (h) re effect on filed financing statement of change in governing law, added Subsec. (i) re effect of change in governing law on financing statement filed against original debtor, and made technical changes, effective July 1, 2013.

View Latest Dockets

29 Files
Filed

Mar 28, 2022

Judge

Hon. Claudia A. Baio Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Claudia A. Baio

Court

Fairfield County

County

Fairfield County, CT

19 Files
Filed

Oct 15, 2013

Judge

Hon. Kevin S. Russo Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Kevin S. Russo

Court

Fairfield County

County

Fairfield County, CT

Practice Area

Property

Matter Type

Foreclosure

23 Files
Filed

Aug 02, 2023

Judge

Hon. Susan Quinn Cobb Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Susan Quinn Cobb

Court

Superior

County

Hartford County, CT

6 Files
Filed

Nov 27, 2023

Court

Superior

County

Hartford County, CT

Practice Area

Insurance

Matter Type

Insurance Coverage

3 Files
Filed

Jan 26, 2024

Court

Hartford County

County

Hartford County, CT

Practice Area

Insurance

Matter Type

General Insurance

View More Dockets

View Latest Documents

preview-icon 2 pages

HFH-CV22-6019756-S Superior Court Ansonia Acquisitions I, LLC, Housing Session d/b/a Woodcliff Estates (80 Washington Street Hartford, CT 06106) v. Annette Rodriguez …

County

Fairfield County, CT

Filed Date

Jul 20, 2022

Judge Hon. Claudia A. Baio Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Claudia A. Baio
preview-icon 4 pages

DOCKET NO.: NNH CV-12-6031105S = : SUPERIOR COURT NRT NEW ENGLAND LLC d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN V. : ATNEW HAVEN CHRISTOPHER G. L. JONES : SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION On July 28, 2014 this court rendered a Memorandum of Decision finding that the plaintiff had proven damages of $34,375.00 on the second count. This court scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees and costs, and the amount of the total judgmen…

County

New Haven County, CT

Filed Date

Sep 23, 2014

Judge Hon. Michael G. Maronich Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Michael G. Maronich
preview-icon 7 pages

No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, : SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. | AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 AMENDED COMPLA FIRST COUNT 1. is is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-11 0b(a), prohibiting u…

County

Fairfield County, CT

Filed Date

Mar 09, 2015

Judge Hon. Douglas C. Mintz Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Douglas C. Mintz
preview-icon 7 pages

No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, f SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH : Plaintiffs i JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. : AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 REVISED COMPLAINT FIRST COUNT 1 This is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a), prohibiting …

County

Fairfield County, CT

Filed Date

Mar 09, 2015

Judge Hon. Douglas C. Mintz Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Douglas C. Mintz
preview-icon 9 pages

No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, z SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH ie Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : April 24, 2015 REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT In the above entitled action, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that they be granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which is appended to this request, pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book 10-60(a)(3). BY: St MA. e Jeremy Collins & Molly Mc@ulloug…

County

Fairfield County, CT

Filed Date

Apr 24, 2015

Judge Hon. Douglas C. Mintz Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Douglas C. Mintz
View More Documents

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope