| 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]. |