ORS 79.0327¹
UCC 9-327. Priority of security interests in deposit account

The following rules govern priority among conflicting security interests in the same deposit account:

(1) A security interest held by a secured party having control of the deposit account under ORS 79.0104 (UCC 9-104. Control of deposit account) has priority over a conflicting security interest held by a secured party that does not have control.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, security interests perfected by control under ORS 79.0314 (UCC 9-314. Perfection by control) rank according to priority in time of obtaining control.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (4) of this section, a security interest held by the bank with which the deposit account is maintained has priority over a conflicting security interest held by another secured party.

(4) A security interest perfected by control under ORS 79.0104 (UCC 9-104. Control of deposit account) (1)(c) has priority over a security interest held by the bank with which the deposit account is maintained. [2001 c.445 §47]

Chapter 79

Note

Subject sec­tions all sub­se­quently renumbered or repealed

Notes of Decisions

The require­ments of this chapter necessary to grant the peti­tioner a security interest in the first net proceeds were satisfied. Great W. Nat. Bank v. Hill, 27 Or App 893, 557 P2d 1367 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

This chapter applies to the assign­ment of proceeds of a pending lawsuit. Great W. Nat. Bank v. Hill, 27 Or App 893, 557 P2d 1367 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

Where lease instru­ment covering farm tractor re­quired lessee to be responsible for taxes and insurance, to bear risk of loss and excluded warranties of fitness and merchantability; at end of lease period fair market wholesale value of tractor would be substantially less than actual estimated value; and common practice was for lessees to purchase tractors for anticipated fair market wholesale value, instru­ment was security agree­ment governed by this chapter. Appleway Leasing Inc., v. Wilken, 39 Or App 43, 591 P2d 382 (1979)

Clear and unequivocal ac­tions manifesting party's intent to waive may be proved by parol and circumstantial evidence as well as by direct testimony. Bank of Eastern Oregon v. Griffith, 101 Or App 528, 792 P2d 1210 (1990)

Law Review Cita­tions

12 WLJ 207-264 (1976); 16 WLR 755 (1980); 75 OLR 493 (1996)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 79—Secured Transactions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors79.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 79, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­079ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information