LD 2245
pg. 152
Page 151 of 493 An Act to Adopt the Model Revised Article 9 Secured Transactions Page 153 of 493
Download Bill Text
LR 1087
Item 1

 
statutes and treaties. First, as discussed above in Comment 5,
it leaves the determination of some rules, such as the rule
establishing time of perfection (Section 9-516(a) [Maine cite
section 9-1516, subsection (1)]), to the other statutes
themselves. Second, this Article explicitly applies some Article
9 [Maine cite Article 9-A] filing rules to perfection under other
statutes or treaties. See, e.g., Section 9-505 [Maine cite
section 9-1505]. Third, this Article makes other Article 9
[Maine cite Article 9-A] rules applicable to security interests
perfected by compliance with another statute through the
"equivalent to . . . filing" provision in the first sentence of
Section 9-311(b) [Maine cite section 9-1311, subsection (2)].
The third approach is reflected for the most part in occasional
Comments explaining how particular rules apply when perfection is
accomplished under Section 9-311(b) [Maine cite section 9-1311,
subsection (2)]. See, e.g., Section 9-310 [Maine cite section 9-
1310], Comment 4; Section 9-315 [Maine cite section 9-1315],
Comment 6; Section 9-317 [Maine cite section 9-1317], Comment 8.
The absence of a Comment indicating that a particular filing
provision applies to perfection pursuant to Section 9-311(b)
[Maine cite section 9-1311, subsection (2)] does not mean the
provision is inapplicable.

 
7. Perfection by Possession of Goods Covered by Certificate-
of-Title Statute. A secured party who holds a security interest
perfected under the law of State A in goods that subsequently are
covered by a State B certificate of title may face a predicament.
Ordinarily, the secured party will have four months under State
B's Section 9-316(c) and (d) [Maine cite section 9-1316,
subsections (3) and (4)] in which to (re)perfect as against a
purchaser of the goods by having its security interest noted on a
State B certificate. This procedure is likely to require the
cooperation of the debtor and any competing secured party whose
security interest has been noted on the certificate. Comment
4(e) to former Section 9-103 observed that "that cooperation is
not likely to be forthcoming from an owner who wrongfully
procured the issuance of a new certificate not showing the out-
of-state security interest, or from a local secured party finding
himself in a priority contest with the out-of-state secured
party." According to that Comment, "[t]he only solution for the
out-of-state secured party under present certificate of title
statutes seems to be to reperfect by possession, i.e., by
repossessing the goods." But the "solution" may not have worked:
Former Section 9-302(4) provided that a security interest in
property subject to a certificate-of-title statute "can be
perfected only by compliance therewith."

 
Sections 9-316(d) and (e), 9-311(c), and 9-313(b) [Maine cite
section 9-1316, subsections (4) and (5), section 9-1311,
subsection (3), and section 9-1313, subsection (2)] of this


Page 151 of 493 Top of Page Page 153 of 493