S. 9-104(j), 9-106, 9-401(1)(c) - hotel rents and related service revenues - excluded as interests in or lien of real estate or included as accounts or general intangibles collateral?
Article Abstract:
Conflicting interpretations of hotel rents need to be settled on the issue of exclusion under Section 104(j) of UCC Article Nine. The Illinois Appellate Court has decided that hotel income such as rent qualifies as interests in real estate, in Travelers Insurance Co. v. First National Bank of Blue Island, thus allowing exclusion. Two other courts have given contrary or similar opinions. Exclusion would remove asset encumbrance or leave recourse to real estate law.
Publication Name: Uniform Commercial Code Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-672X
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Section 2-207 - "battle of the forms" revisited - "knock out" rule reaffirmed - "Roto-Lith" overruled
Article Abstract:
The 1997 Ionics decision in the 1st Circuit illustrates the problem in determining validity of each parties' contractual forms of orders, acknowledgment, warranties, and so forth. This battle of the forms question often arises in UCC litigation. In this case, the damages limits clauses and the warranty clauses exchanged by the parties cancelled each other out under the so-called knock-out rule. The decision also overturned the 1962 Roto-Lith decision.
Publication Name: Uniform Commercial Code Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-672X
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
"Deposit accounts" as personal property collateral under California UCC - bank's failure to comply with garnishment order - waiver of bank's security interest and set-off rights
Article Abstract:
A bankruptcy court held that a bank lost its security rights on a California account because it ignored a garnishment order and let the depositor's account activity continue. The decision involved California's version of Article Nine of the Uniform Commercial Code, which differs from the law of most other states. A newer version, adopted by 46 states, omits deposit accounts from secured interest property under Article Nine.
Publication Name: Uniform Commercial Code Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-672X
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: The FDIC, taking a different approach from the Federal Reserve, weighs in on how regulations of deposits apply to stored value cards
- Abstracts: S. 2-714, 2-715 - buyer's measure of damages for sale of diseased fruit trees - lost profits allowed. Sections 2-102, 2-202 - mixed sale - service transaction; sales parol evidence rule not applicable to service part of the transaction
- Abstracts: Rev. s. 4-303, 4-104(a)(9) - priority of judgment creditor of bank depositor against bank's setoff. Section 9-104(i) - exclusion of bank setoff from Article 9 coverage - Pennsylvania common law priority of setoff over perfected security interest in a certificate of deposit
- Abstracts: Order of Turkish court restraining payment of letter of credit by Turkish bank in New York not enforceable - independence principle revisited