| 3. Competing Security Interests. Under a proper reading of |
the first-to-file-or perfect rule of Section 9-322(a)(1) [Maine |
cite section 9-1322, subsection (1), paragraph (a)] (and former |
Section 9-312(5)), it is abundantly clear that the time when an |
advance is made plays no role in determining priorities among |
conflicting security interests except when a financing statement |
was not filed and the advance is the giving of value as the last |
step for attachment and perfection. Thus, a secured party takes |
subject to all advances secured by a competing security interest |
having priority under Section 9-322(a)(1) [Maine cite section 9- |
1322, subsection (1), paragraph (a)]. This result generally |
obtains regardless of how the competing security interest is |
perfected and regardless of whether the advances are made |
"pursuant to commitment" (Section 9-102 [Maine cite section 9- |
1102]). Subsection (a) [Maine cite subsection (1)] of this |
section states the only other instance when the time of an |
advance figures in the priority scheme in Section 9-322 [Maine |
cite section 9-1322]: when the security interest is perfected |
only automatically under Section 9-309 [Maine cite section 9- |
1309] or temporarily under Section 9-312(e), (f), or (g) [Maine |
cite section 9-1312, subsection (5), (6) or (7)], and the advance |
is not made pursuant to a commitment entered into while the |
security interest was perfected by another method. Thus, an |
advance has priority from the date it is made only in the rare |
case in which it is made without commitment and while the |
security interest is perfected only temporarily under Section 9- |
312 [Maine cite section 9-1312]. |