Rev. s. 4-303, 4-104(a)(9) - priority of judgment creditor of bank depositor against bank's setoff

Article Abstract:

The Connecticut Supreme Court gave priority to a judgement creditor in Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National Bank. The bank had improperly dishonored two execution orders for a bank depositor, pitting the creditor against the bank's setoff. The Court found that Revised section 303 of UCC Article 4 did not apply to the conflict, which would have imposed a deadline on the bank under section 104(a)(9) of UCC Article 4. Nonetheless, the Court still found for the creditor.

Priorities of claims and liens

---

Sections 9-306(2), 9-203(3), 2-236(2) - automatic contribution of security interest in identifiable proceeds; rights of consignee's creditors against consignor

Article Abstract:

A 1997 Calif case held that security agreement language describing collateral created a security interest in both the inventory and in the proceeds from its sales. The case centered on a dispute between a flower wholesaler and a grower.

Laws, regulations and rules, California, states

---

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

Article Abstract:

A Pennsylvania court, ruling in 1996 case, held the state's common law right of set-off had priority over a bank's perfected possessory security interest in a certificate of deposit.

Banking industry, Pennsylvania, Set-off and counterclaim, Counterclaims, Certificates of deposit

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Taking note; securing fees by confessions of judgment. Pay or I'll file charges; using the ultimate threat against an opposing party
• Abstracts: Dueling software makers: company president claims badmouthing in suit against competitor, then lobs his own allegations
• 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

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.