The question concerns the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account, which is a controllable electronic record of an amount of money, held by a bank. Under Utah’s version of UCC Article 9, a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is achieved when the secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained, or when the debtor has agreed in writing that the bank shall comply with the secured party’s instructions regarding the deposit account. The scenario describes a security agreement where a lender has a security interest in a borrower’s deposit account. The borrower has not granted control to the lender, nor has the bank agreed to follow the lender’s instructions. Instead, the borrower retains exclusive control. Therefore, the lender’s security interest is unperfected. Perfection is crucial for establishing priority against other creditors and in bankruptcy. Without control, the lender’s security interest is subordinate to a buyer of the deposit account that takes possession, a levying creditor, and a trustee in bankruptcy. Utah Code Section 44-9-312(1) and Utah Code Section 44-9-104 detail the methods of perfection for deposit accounts.

In Utah, under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account is achieved by control. Control over a deposit account is established when the secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the agreement of the bank with which the deposit account is maintained to comply with instructions from the secured party directing the disposition of the funds in the deposit account. A security agreement alone, without control, does not perfect the security interest in a deposit account. Filing a financing statement is generally not the method for perfecting a security interest in deposit accounts, although it is relevant for other types of collateral. The possession of the account passbook by the secured party is not a recognized method for establishing control over a deposit account for perfection purposes under Article 9. Therefore, obtaining the bank’s agreement to follow the secured party’s instructions is the crucial step for perfection when the secured party is not the depositary bank itself.

This question probes the understanding of the perfection requirements for a security interest in deposit accounts under Utah’s Uniform Commercial Code, specifically Article 9. Perfection in deposit accounts is generally achieved through control. Under Utah Code Ann. § 70A-9a-312(b), a security interest in a deposit account as collateral can be perfected only by control. Control is established when the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the agreement of the bank in which the deposit account is maintained to comply with the secured party’s instructions concerning the deposit account, or when the secured party becomes the assignee of the deposit account. The scenario describes a situation where the debtor pledges its deposit account at First National Bank of Utah to secure a loan from Capital Lending Corp. Capital Lending Corp. takes possession of the account statements but does not obtain an agreement from First National Bank of Utah to follow its instructions. Therefore, Capital Lending Corp. has not established control. A subsequent lender, Mountain Credit Union, which perfects its security interest in the same deposit account by obtaining control through a control agreement with First National Bank of Utah, will have priority. The priority rules for deposit accounts under Utah Code Ann. § 70A-9a-327 dictate that a secured party having control has priority over a secured party that does not have control over the deposit account. Furthermore, among secured parties that have control, priority is determined by the time of the acquisition of control. Since Mountain Credit Union obtained control by agreement with the bank, and Capital Lending Corp. did not obtain control, Mountain Credit Union’s security interest is perfected and has priority.

The scenario involves a secured party, “Mountain Gear Outfitters,” which has a perfected security interest in inventory and after-acquired inventory of a debtor, “Summit Sports Supply,” located in Utah. Summit Sports Supply also has a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in new inventory acquired from “Alpine Distributors.” The core issue is the priority between these two security interests in the newly acquired inventory. Under Utah’s version of UCC Article 9, a PMSI in goods other than inventory generally has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same goods if the PMSI is perfected when the debtor receives possession of the goods or within a specified period thereafter. However, for inventory, a PMSI holder must satisfy additional requirements to gain superpriority over a prior perfected security interest in that inventory. Specifically, Utah Code Ann. § 70A-9a-324(b) states that a PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory if: 1) the PMSI is perfected when the debtor receives possession of the inventory; 2) the PMSI holder gives an authenticated notification to the holder of the conflicting security interest before the debtor receives possession of the inventory; and 3) the notification states that the PMSI holder expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the type the debtor is to acquire and describes or identifies the inventory. In this case, Mountain Gear Outfitters has a prior perfected security interest. Alpine Distributors has a PMSI. For Alpine Distributors’ PMSI to have priority over Mountain Gear Outfitters’ earlier perfected security interest in the after-acquired inventory, Alpine Distributors must have met the notification requirements of § 70A-9a-324(b) before Summit Sports Supply received possession of the new inventory from Alpine. Since the facts state that Alpine Distributors failed to provide the required notification to Mountain Gear Outfitters, their PMSI in the newly acquired inventory will not have priority over Mountain Gear Outfitters’ perfected security interest. Therefore, Mountain Gear Outfitters’ security interest has priority.

The question revolves around determining the proper place to file a financing statement for collateral that is a general intangible and the debtor is located in Utah. Utah’s Article 9, like the UCC generally, mandates that for general intangibles, the financing statement must be filed in the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. Utah Code Section 70A-9a-301(1) specifies that the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor is located governs perfection and priority. Further, Utah Code Section 70A-9a-307(1) defines the location of a debtor for a registered organization to be its chief executive office. If the debtor is an individual, it’s their principal residence. If it’s a partnership or unincorporated organization, it’s its chief executive office. In this scenario, the debtor, “Mountain View Innovations LLC,” is a limited liability company. As a registered organization, its location for filing purposes is its chief executive office. Assuming the chief executive office of Mountain View Innovations LLC is in Salt Lake City, Utah, then the correct place to file the financing statement to perfect the security interest in the general intangible (software licenses) is with the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s office, which handles UCC filings in Utah. This is because the debtor is located in Utah.

The question tests the priority rules for conflicting security interests when a debtor defaults. In Utah, under UCC § 9-322, a perfected security interest generally has priority over an unperfected security interest. When multiple perfected security interests exist, priority is typically determined by the order of filing or perfection. However, UCC § 9-324 provides special priority rules for purchase-money security interests (PMSIs). A PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory if certain conditions are met: the PMSI is perfected when the debtor receives possession of the inventory, the secured party sends an authenticated notification to any holder of a conflicting security interest, and the notification states that the sender has or expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and describes the inventory. Similarly, a PMSI in equipment has priority over a conflicting security interest if it is perfected within a specific timeframe after the debtor receives possession. In this scenario, Aurora Bank has a perfected security interest in all of Alta Corp’s inventory and equipment. This perfection predates any other claim. Later, Summit Financial provides a purchase-money security interest in new manufacturing equipment acquired by Alta Corp. Summit Financial perfects its security interest in the new equipment within the statutory grace period, which is 20 days after the debtor receives possession in Utah, as per Utah Code Ann. § 70A-9a-317(e) and § 70A-9a-324(a). However, Summit Financial failed to send the required notification to Aurora Bank, the holder of a prior perfected security interest in after-acquired equipment. Because Summit Financial did not satisfy the notification requirement of UCC § 9-324(a) for PMSIs in equipment, its security interest in the new equipment is subordinate to Aurora Bank’s previously perfected security interest. Therefore, Aurora Bank’s security interest has priority.

The scenario involves a security interest in inventory. Under Utah’s Uniform Commercial Code Article 9, a buyer in the ordinary course of business takes free of a security interest created by the seller even though the security interest is perfected and even though the buyer knows of its existence, unless the buyer knows that the sale is in violation of the security agreement. In this case, the security agreement between “Mountain Gear Distributors” and “Alpine Outfitters” grants a security interest in all of Alpine Outfitters’ inventory, including after-acquired inventory. “Summit Sports Inc.” is a buyer in the ordinary course of business of inventory from Alpine Outfitters. The security agreement does not prohibit such sales. Therefore, Summit Sports Inc. takes the inventory free of Mountain Gear Distributors’ security interest, regardless of Summit Sports Inc.’s knowledge of the security interest, as long as the sale is in the ordinary course of business and not in violation of the security agreement. The UCC § 9-320 provides this protection. The question hinges on the status of Summit Sports Inc. as a buyer in the ordinary course of business. Since Summit Sports Inc. purchased inventory from Alpine Outfitters in the ordinary course of its business, and the security agreement did not prohibit such sales, their purchase is generally not subject to Mountain Gear Distributors’ perfected security interest.

The scenario involves a dispute over collateral priority between a purchase money security interest (PMSI) holder and a prior perfected security interest holder. Under Utah’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, specifically Utah Code Ann. § 70A-9a-324, a PMSI in goods, other than inventory, has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same goods if the PMSI is perfected when the debtor receives possession of the goods or within twenty days thereafter. In this case, Sterling Bank perfected its security interest in all of Apex Manufacturing’s equipment on January 15, 2023. On February 1, 2023, Summit Equipment Finance extended credit to Apex Manufacturing for the purchase of a specific milling machine, taking a PMSI in that machine. Summit Equipment Finance filed its financing statement on February 10, 2023, which is within twenty days of Apex receiving possession of the milling machine on February 5, 2023. Therefore, Summit’s PMSI in the milling machine has priority over Sterling Bank’s prior perfected security interest in Apex’s equipment, including the milling machine. This priority rule is designed to encourage the financing of new equipment by allowing PMSI holders to obtain superpriority under specific conditions. The key is the timely perfection of the PMSI relative to the debtor’s possession of the collateral.

The core issue here is determining the priority of security interests when a debtor defaults. In Utah, as under Article 9 of the UCC, a perfected security interest generally has priority over an unperfected security interest. Perfection is typically achieved by filing a financing statement or, in some cases, by possession or control. The timing of perfection is crucial. The first secured party to file or perfect has priority. In this scenario, Zenith Bank filed its financing statement on April 1st, perfecting its security interest in the company’s inventory and equipment. This filing establishes Zenith Bank’s priority as of that date. Subsequently, Alpine Credit Union obtained a security interest and filed its financing statement on May 15th. Since Zenith Bank’s interest was already perfected prior to Alpine Credit Union’s filing, Zenith Bank’s security interest has priority over Alpine Credit Union’s security interest in the collateral. This priority is not affected by the fact that Alpine Credit Union’s loan was made first. The UCC prioritizes perfection over the order of the underlying loan agreement when determining priority among secured creditors. Therefore, Zenith Bank’s perfected security interest takes precedence.

The core issue revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Utah Code Section 70A-9a-312(1), a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is defined in Utah Code Section 70A-9a-104. For a deposit account, control is established when the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the agreement of the bank with which the deposit account is maintained and the secured party becomes the customer of the bank with respect to the deposit account. In this scenario, the security agreement grants a security interest in the deposit account, but the debtor retains sole control as the customer of the bank. The secured party, “SecureFi Corp.,” has not taken any steps to gain control over the deposit account. Filing a financing statement, as done by SecureFi Corp., is generally ineffective for perfecting a security interest in a deposit account, as per Utah Code Section 70A-9a-312(1). Therefore, SecureFi Corp. has an unperfected security interest in the deposit account. In bankruptcy, an unperfected security interest is subordinate to the rights of a trustee in bankruptcy, who has the status of a hypothetical lien creditor. The trustee can avoid the unperfected security interest.

The scenario involves a debtor, “Aero Dynamics,” located in Utah, granting a security interest in its inventory of specialized aircraft components to a secured party, “Global Finance Corp.” Aero Dynamics subsequently moves its primary place of business and a substantial portion of its inventory to Nevada. Global Finance Corp. filed its financing statement in Utah. The critical question is where Global Finance Corp. must file a continuation statement to maintain the perfection of its security interest in the inventory. Under UCC § 9-316, if a debtor moves collateral to a new jurisdiction, the law of the new jurisdiction governs perfection for a limited period. However, UCC § 9-501(b) states that the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor is located governs the filing of financing statements and continuation statements. For a registered organization, like Aero Dynamics, its location is determined by the law of the jurisdiction under whose law it is organized. Since Aero Dynamics is organized under Utah law, its location for Article 9 purposes remains Utah, even if its chief executive office or principal place of business is elsewhere. Therefore, Global Finance Corp. must continue to file its continuation statements in Utah to maintain perfection against third parties. The UCC prioritizes the jurisdiction of organization for registered entities when determining the location for filing purposes, irrespective of the physical location of the collateral or the debtor’s principal place of business. This ensures predictability for secured creditors who rely on the initial filing jurisdiction.

This scenario involves a conflict between a purchase money security interest (PMSI) and a previously perfected security interest in after-acquired inventory. In Utah, under UCC § 9-324, a PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory if certain conditions are met. These conditions include filing a financing statement before the delivery of the inventory to the debtor and sending an authenticated notification to the holder of the conflicting security interest before the filing. The debtor received the new inventory on October 1st. The financing statement for the PMSI was filed on September 15th, which is before the delivery of the inventory. The notification to First National Bank, which held a prior perfected security interest in all of the debtor’s inventory, was sent on September 20th. This notification satisfies the requirement under Utah law for a PMSI holder to notify prior secured parties of their intent to acquire a PMSI in inventory. Therefore, the PMSI in the new inventory is perfected and has priority over First National Bank’s previously perfected security interest. The value of the new inventory is $50,000.

The scenario involves a secured party, Summit Bank, and a debtor, Alpine Outfitters, which is a Utah-based business. Alpine Outfitters granted Summit Bank a security interest in its inventory of custom-made skis and related equipment. Summit Bank properly perfected its security interest by filing a financing statement in Utah. Later, Alpine Outfitters also sold some of these skis to a buyer in the ordinary course of business, Ms. Evelyn Reed, who is a resident of Wyoming. The question asks about the priority of Summit Bank’s security interest against Ms. Reed’s interest as a buyer. Under Utah’s Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, specifically Utah Code Ann. § 70A-9a-320, a buyer in the ordinary course of business generally takes free of a security interest created by the seller, even if the security interest is perfected. This protection applies to buyers of goods, including inventory. Therefore, Ms. Reed, as a buyer in the ordinary course of Alpine Outfitters’ business, takes the skis free of Summit Bank’s security interest. The fact that Summit Bank’s security interest was perfected is irrelevant to the buyer’s status as taking free of the security interest. The location of the buyer (Wyoming) does not alter this fundamental rule of Article 9 regarding buyers in the ordinary course.

In Utah, under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory generally requires a secured party to file a financing statement and, importantly, to notify any other secured party who has filed a financing statement covering the same collateral or who has perfected a security interest in that collateral before the date of the filing of the PMSI financing statement. This notification requirement is found in Utah Code Section 70A-9a-324(c). The purpose of this notification is to provide an opportunity for the prior secured party to protect its interest. Without such notification, the PMSI in inventory may not have priority over a previously perfected security interest. The notification must be sent within a specific timeframe, typically before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. In this scenario, Apex Bank had a prior perfected security interest in all of Zenith Corp’s inventory. Apex Bank filed its financing statement on January 15th. Creditor B, holding a PMSI in Zenith Corp’s new manufacturing equipment, filed its financing statement on February 1st. Creditor B also sent written notification to Apex Bank on February 5th, which Apex Bank received on February 8th. Since Creditor B’s notification was sent after Zenith Corp received possession of the inventory (implied by the ability to use it as collateral), and also after Apex Bank’s prior filing, Creditor B’s PMSI in the inventory would not have priority over Apex Bank’s existing security interest. The notification requirement for PMSI in inventory is a critical step to gain superpriority.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in accounts that are being sold. Under Utah Code Annotated § 70A-9a-109(1), a sale of accounts is considered a secured transaction. A security interest in accounts is perfected by filing a financing statement under Utah Code Annotated § 70A-9a-310(1). The financing statement must be filed in the appropriate jurisdiction, which for a registered organization is the state of its chief executive office, as per Utah Code Annotated § 70A-9a-307(1)(b). In this scenario, “Mountain Manufacturing Inc.” is a Utah corporation with its chief executive office in Salt Lake City, Utah. Therefore, the correct jurisdiction for filing the financing statement to perfect the security interest in Mountain Manufacturing Inc.’s accounts is Utah. The filing must occur before the bankruptcy petition is filed to be effective against the bankruptcy trustee, who has the status of a hypothetical lien creditor under 11 U.S.C. § 544. Since the filing occurred on May 1st, 2023, and the bankruptcy petition was filed on May 15th, 2023, the filing was timely and effective. The purchase money security interest (PMSI) rules are not directly relevant to the perfection of a security interest in accounts via filing, although a PMSI in inventory might require additional steps. The question focuses on the perfection of the security interest in the accounts themselves. Therefore, the perfection is achieved by filing in Utah.

The scenario involves a dispute over the priority of a security interest in a motor vehicle located in Utah. Acme Leasing (Secured Party) perfected its security interest in a truck by filing a financing statement in Utah and by having its security interest noted on the certificate of ownership, as required by Utah law for motor vehicles. Later, Beta Bank (another Secured Party) obtained a purchase-money security interest in the same truck, also filing a financing statement in Utah and having its interest noted on the certificate of ownership. The core issue is determining which security interest has priority. Under Utah Code Ann. § 70A-9a-311(2), compliance with Utah’s certificate of title law is the method of perfection for security interests in goods covered by a certificate of title. When a security interest is perfected by notation on a certificate of title, that perfection generally provides notice and establishes priority against subsequent interests. The question is whether Acme’s earlier filing and notation, or Beta’s later purchase-money security interest and notation, takes precedence. Utah law, like the UCC generally, prioritizes perfected security interests. Since both Acme and Beta have perfected their interests according to Utah’s certificate of title provisions, the general rule of “first in time, first in right” applies to the perfection of their respective security interests. Acme’s security interest was perfected first, as indicated by its earlier filing and notation on the certificate of ownership. Therefore, Acme’s security interest has priority over Beta’s subsequently perfected security interest. The fact that Beta’s is a purchase-money security interest is relevant for certain priority rules, but it does not override the priority established by Acme’s earlier perfection, especially when both are perfected by notation on the certificate of title.

This scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in equipment. Under Utah law, specifically Utah Code Ann. § 70A-9a-324, a PMSI in equipment has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same equipment if the PMSI is perfected by filing within twenty days after the debtor receives possession of the collateral. Here, “Mountain Machinery LLC” (Debtor) received possession of the specialized drilling rig on March 1st. “Rocky Mountain Capital Corp.” (Secured Party 1) filed its financing statement on March 10th. This filing occurred within the twenty-day grace period, thus perfecting its PMSI. “Canyon Bank” (Secured Party 2) had a prior perfected security interest in all of the Debtor’s equipment, including after-acquired property, by filing on February 15th. However, a PMSI generally takes priority over a prior perfected security interest in the same collateral if the PMSI requirements are met. Since Rocky Mountain Capital Corp. properly filed within the twenty-day window, its PMSI in the drilling rig has priority over Canyon Bank’s earlier, but non-PMSI, perfected security interest in the same equipment. Therefore, Rocky Mountain Capital Corp. has priority.

The core issue here is determining when a security interest attaches and becomes perfected in a scenario involving a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. Under Utah Code Ann. § 70A-9a-324, a PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory, provided certain conditions are met. The secured party must have a PMSI in the inventory, the conflicting security interest must have attached to the inventory, and the PMSI must have been perfected when the debtor received possession of the inventory. Furthermore, the PMSI secured party must have given an authenticated notification to any other secured party whose security interest has already been perfected in the same inventory. This notification must state that the PMSI secured party expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and must describe the inventory by item or type. The notification must be sent before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. In this case, Apex Bank perfected its security interest in all of Zephyr Corp’s existing and after-acquired inventory on January 15, 2023. On March 1, 2023, Zenith Financial provided a loan to Zephyr Corp, taking a PMSI in new inventory. Zenith Financial sent its notification to Apex Bank on February 20, 2023, which was before Zephyr Corp received possession of the new inventory on March 5, 2023. Therefore, Zenith Financial’s PMSI is perfected and has priority over Apex Bank’s earlier perfected security interest in the same inventory, as it complied with the notification requirements of Utah Code Ann. § 70A-9a-324. The date of perfection for Apex Bank was January 15, 2023. The date of attachment for Zenith Financial’s PMSI was March 5, 2023, upon debtor possession. The notification was sent on February 20, 2023, satisfying the requirement to be sent before debtor possession.

Under Utah’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, the perfection of a security interest in deposit accounts is a critical aspect of secured transactions. Unlike many other types of collateral, a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is established when the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the bank’s agreement to comply with the secured party’s instructions regarding the deposit account. This is a significant departure from perfection methods for other collateral, such as filing a financing statement or possession. The UCC distinguishes between deposit accounts as original collateral and deposit accounts as proceeds. When a deposit account is original collateral, control is the exclusive method of perfection. If a deposit account arises as proceeds of other collateral, such as accounts receivable, the security interest in the deposit account as proceeds is automatically perfected if the security interest in the original collateral was perfected. However, this automatic perfection generally ceases after a period of time if the deposit account is not itself perfected by control, unless the deposit account is identifiable cash proceeds. The scenario presented involves a security interest granted in a deposit account as original collateral. Therefore, the secured party must obtain control to perfect its security interest. Filing a financing statement is insufficient for perfection in this specific instance, as it does not grant control over the deposit account. Similarly, possession is not applicable to intangible deposit accounts. The bank’s acknowledgement of the security interest without an agreement to comply with the secured party’s instructions does not constitute control.

The scenario involves a dispute over collateral priority in Utah. A lender, “Alpine Equipment Financing” (AEF), perfected a security interest in “Canyon Construction’s” (CC) entire equipment inventory by filing a financing statement on January 15, 2023, in Utah. Subsequently, CC sold a piece of equipment, a specialized excavator, to “Desert Roadworks Inc.” (DRW) on March 10, 2023. DRW, unaware of AEF’s security interest, financed the purchase through “Mountain Valley Bank” (MVB). MVB promptly filed a financing statement for the excavator on March 12, 2023, in Utah. The core issue is whether MVB’s security interest in the excavator has priority over AEF’s earlier perfected security interest in CC’s entire inventory, which included the excavator. Under Utah’s Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9, the general rule for priority among competing security interests in the same collateral is that the first to file or perfect has priority (U.C.C. § 9-322(a)(1)). AEF filed its financing statement on January 15, 2023, perfecting its security interest in all of CC’s equipment inventory. The excavator was part of this inventory at that time. DRW purchased the excavator from CC. The sale of inventory in the ordinary course of business is governed by U.C.C. § 9-320. This section provides that a buyer in the ordinary course of business takes free of a security interest created by the seller, even if the security interest is perfected and the buyer knows of its existence, unless the buyer knows that the sale is in violation of the security agreement. However, this protection applies to the buyer directly, not necessarily to a lender financing the buyer. The question here is about the priority of MVB’s security interest, which was taken to finance DRW’s purchase. MVB’s security interest is in the excavator itself, which was collateral for the loan to DRW. MVB filed its financing statement on March 12, 2023. AEF’s security interest was perfected on January 15, 2023. Since AEF’s security interest was perfected before MVB filed its financing statement, AEF generally has priority. However, we must consider if MVB qualifies for any special priority rules. U.C.C. § 9-324(a) addresses purchase-money security interests (PMSIs). A PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory if the PMSI requirements are met. For a PMSI in inventory to have priority, the secured party must have perfected its interest before the debtor receives possession of the inventory, and the secured party must have given new value to the debtor in the ordinary course of business, and the secured party must have sent an authenticated notification to any other secured party whose collateral includes inventory, stating that it expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor, and describing the inventory. MVB’s security interest is likely a PMSI in the excavator for DRW. However, MVB’s financing statement was filed on March 12, 2023, after DRW took possession of the excavator on March 10, 2023. Furthermore, there is no indication that MVB sent the required notification to AEF prior to filing. Therefore, MVB’s PMSI, even if valid, does not meet the requirements for priority over AEF’s earlier perfected security interest in the inventory under U.C.C. § 9-324(a). The filing date is crucial here. AEF perfected its security interest on January 15, 2023. MVB filed its financing statement on March 12, 2023. Therefore, AEF’s security interest has priority. The correct answer is that AEF’s security interest has priority.

The question revolves around the concept of attachment and perfection of a security interest in Utah under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, specifically when dealing with collateral that has a certificate of title. Attachment occurs when a creditor gives value, the debtor has rights in the collateral, and a security agreement exists that describes the collateral. Perfection, on the other hand, is the process by which a secured party establishes priority over other creditors. For certain types of collateral, like motor vehicles, perfection is achieved by complying with a certificate of title statute. Utah Code § 70A-9a-311(1)(b) explicitly states that compliance with Utah’s certificate of title law is the method of perfection for goods covered by a certificate of title. This means that filing a UCC financing statement is generally ineffective for such collateral. Therefore, when a security interest is granted in a vehicle that is subject to Utah’s certificate of title laws, the secured party must have the security interest noted on the certificate of title to achieve perfection. If the secured party only files a UCC financing statement, their security interest will not be perfected against third parties who acquire rights in the collateral. The scenario describes a debtor granting a security interest in a truck to Creditor A, who then files a UCC financing statement. Subsequently, the debtor grants a security interest in the same truck to Creditor B, who correctly notes their interest on the truck’s certificate of title. Because the truck is subject to Utah’s certificate of title provisions, Creditor B’s perfection by notation on the title takes precedence over Creditor A’s ineffective UCC filing. Thus, Creditor B has priority.

The core issue here revolves around the priority of security interests when a debtor has granted multiple security interests in the same collateral. In Utah, as under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the general rule for priority among competing secured parties is first-to-file or first-to-perfect. Perfection is typically achieved by filing a financing statement or by possession of the collateral. However, when dealing with after-acquired property clauses in security agreements, the UCC provides specific rules. In this scenario, “Apex Manufacturing” has a perfected security interest in all of “Valley Forge Steel’s” inventory, including after-acquired inventory. This perfection occurred on January 15th. Subsequently, “Summit Bank” obtained a security interest in Valley Forge Steel’s equipment, which was also perfected on February 1st. The critical event is the acquisition of new inventory by Valley Forge Steel on March 10th. This new inventory falls under Apex Manufacturing’s after-acquired property clause. When a security interest attaches to after-acquired property, it generally takes priority over a later-perfected security interest in that same property. Apex Manufacturing’s security interest in the new inventory attached as soon as the inventory was acquired, which was March 10th. Apex’s interest was already perfected on January 15th, covering all inventory, including after-acquired inventory. Summit Bank’s security interest in equipment, while perfected on February 1st, does not extend to the inventory. Therefore, Apex Manufacturing’s perfected security interest in the inventory, including the newly acquired items, takes priority over any unperfected interest or any interest that is perfected later in that specific inventory. Since Summit Bank’s interest is in equipment and was perfected after Apex’s initial perfection in inventory, Apex’s interest in the inventory remains superior. The question asks about the priority of the security interests in the *newly acquired inventory*. Apex Manufacturing’s security interest in inventory, including after-acquired inventory, was perfected on January 15th. Valley Forge Steel acquired new inventory on March 10th. This after-acquired inventory automatically became subject to Apex’s perfected security interest upon acquisition. Summit Bank’s security interest was in equipment and was perfected on February 1st. Since the collateral in question is inventory, and Apex’s security interest in inventory was perfected before Summit Bank’s perfection in equipment, Apex has priority in the newly acquired inventory. The fact that Summit Bank’s perfection occurred between Apex’s initial perfection and the acquisition of the new inventory is irrelevant because Summit Bank’s security interest does not cover inventory. Therefore, Apex Manufacturing’s perfected security interest in the inventory, including the inventory acquired on March 10th, has priority.

The core issue revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account when the secured party is a bank that is also the depository institution. Under Utah Code Section 44-9-312(1), a security interest is perfected when it has attached and all of the applicable steps for perfection have been taken. For deposit accounts, perfection is generally achieved by control, as outlined in Utah Code Section 44-9-104. Control is established when the secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the right to direct the disposition of the deposit account. Utah Code Section 44-9-104(1)(A) specifically states that a secured party has control over a deposit account if the secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained. Therefore, when a bank takes a security interest in a deposit account held at that same bank, its security interest is automatically perfected by control at the moment of attachment, without the need for filing a financing statement or taking possession. The bank’s status as the depository institution grants it the necessary control.

The scenario involves a security interest in inventory. In Utah, as under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, a buyer of inventory in the ordinary course of business takes the inventory free of a security interest created by the seller, even if the security interest is perfected and the buyer knows of its existence, unless the buyer also knows that the sale is in violation of the security agreement. This is often referred to as the “ordinary course of business” exception. The debtor, “Mountain Gear Emporium,” is a retailer selling camping equipment, which constitutes inventory. “Summit Bank” has a perfected security interest in this inventory. “Adventure Outfitters Inc.” is a wholesaler that purchases equipment from Mountain Gear Emporium for resale, meaning they are a buyer of inventory in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, Adventure Outfitters Inc. takes the inventory free of Summit Bank’s security interest because they are a buyer in the ordinary course of business, and there is no indication that their purchase was in violation of the security agreement. The perfection of Summit Bank’s security interest is irrelevant to Adventure Outfitters Inc.’s status as a buyer in the ordinary course of business.

This question tests the understanding of perfection by possession under Utah’s Article 9, specifically concerning certificated securities. Under Utah Code Ann. § 70A-9A-313(1)(c), a secured party may perfect a security interest in certificated securities by taking possession of the certificate. The key is that possession must be taken by the secured party or its agent, and the certificate must be delivered to the secured party. Merely holding the certificate as an agent of the debtor, without the intent to secure the debt and without control over the certificate as a secured party, does not constitute possession for perfection purposes. In this scenario, while the bank’s employee physically held the stock certificate, that employee was acting as the debtor’s agent for safekeeping, not as the secured party’s agent to possess the collateral for the security interest. Therefore, the bank’s security interest in the certificated securities was not perfected by possession. Perfection would require either taking possession as a secured party or filing a financing statement, assuming the securities are of a type that filing can perfect.

The scenario describes a situation involving a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. Under Utah’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, a PMSI holder in inventory must satisfy specific notification requirements to maintain priority over other secured parties. Specifically, Utah UCC § 9-324(b) requires that for a PMSI in inventory to have priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory, the PMSI holder must have perfected its security interest when the debtor received possession of the inventory. Furthermore, the PMSI holder must have given an authenticated notification to any other secured party whose security interest was perfected *before* the filing of the PMSI financing statement, and that notification must state that the PMSI holder expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor, including after-acquired inventory. This notification must be sent within a specific timeframe, typically within 20 days before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. In this case, the notification was sent *after* the debtor received possession of the inventory and *after* the competing secured party had already filed its financing statement. This failure to meet the timing and content requirements of Utah UCC § 9-324(b) means the PMSI holder will not have priority over the earlier perfected security interest. The earlier perfected secured party, having a perfected security interest in all of the debtor’s inventory, including after-acquired inventory, will have priority. The key failure is the timing of the notification relative to the debtor’s receipt of inventory and the filing of the competing security interest.

This scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in equipment and the priority rules under Utah’s Article 9. A PMSI grants the secured party special priority rights if certain perfection requirements are met. For equipment, a PMSI holder generally has priority over a prior perfected security interest in the same collateral if the PMSI is perfected by filing before or within twenty days after the debtor receives possession of the collateral. In this case, Rocky Mountain Bank had a prior perfected security interest in all of “Apex Corp’s” existing and after-acquired equipment. Summit Financial provided Apex Corp with a loan to purchase specific manufacturing machinery, creating a PMSI in that machinery. Summit Financial filed its financing statement on April 15th, and Apex Corp received possession of the machinery on April 10th. Under Utah Code § 70A-9a-324, Summit Financial’s PMSI will have priority over Rocky Mountain Bank’s earlier perfected security interest in the machinery if Summit Financial files its financing statement within twenty days of Apex Corp receiving possession. Since Apex Corp received possession on April 10th, the twenty-day period ends on April 30th. Summit Financial’s filing on April 15th falls within this window. Therefore, Summit Financial’s PMSI in the machinery has priority over Rocky Mountain Bank’s security interest. The key is the timely filing of the PMSI financing statement relative to the debtor’s possession of the collateral.

Under Utah’s Uniform Commercial Code, specifically Article 9, the perfection of a security interest in certain types of collateral, such as accounts, general intangibles, and chattel paper, is generally achieved by filing a financing statement. However, if the secured party has possession of the collateral, such as tangible chattel paper, perfection can also be achieved through possession. The scenario describes a security agreement granting a security interest in chattel paper to Zions Bank. Zions Bank takes possession of the physical chattel paper. Perfection by possession is a valid alternative to filing for certain types of collateral under UCC § 9-313. When a secured party has possession of the collateral, it serves as public notice of the security interest, similar to filing. In this case, Zions Bank’s possession of the chattel paper perfects its security interest in that collateral. The filing of a financing statement is also a method of perfection, but possession provides an alternative and, in some instances, superior method for specific collateral types like chattel paper. The question asks about the *most effective* method of perfection. While filing is a standard method, for chattel paper, taking possession offers a direct and often more secure form of perfection, especially when considering potential competing claims or the risk of the debtor transferring the collateral without the secured party’s knowledge if only filing was used. Therefore, Zions Bank’s possession of the chattel paper is the most effective method of perfecting its security interest in that specific collateral.

The core issue here revolves around the priority of security interests when a debtor defaults and a secured party seeks to repossess and sell collateral. In Utah, as under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the perfection of a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory has specific requirements to gain priority over earlier perfected security interests. A PMSI in inventory is perfected when the security interest attaches and the secured party gives value, and crucially, the secured party must have rights in the collateral. To maintain priority against other secured parties, the PMSI holder must also ensure that the debtor is aware of the PMSI and that the other secured parties are notified of the PMSI before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. In this scenario, “Mountain Bank” had a prior perfected security interest in all of “Canyon Outfitters'” inventory. “Alpine Finance” subsequently extended credit to Canyon Outfitters, taking a PMSI in new inventory acquired. Alpine Finance perfected its security interest by filing a financing statement before Canyon Outfitters received the new inventory. However, for Alpine Finance’s PMSI to have priority over Mountain Bank’s earlier perfected security interest in the same inventory, Alpine Finance must also satisfy the notification requirements outlined in Utah Code § 70A-9a-324. This provision requires that the PMSI holder notify any secured party that has previously filed a financing statement covering the inventory or is entitled to priority under Utah Code § 70A-9a-322(1)(b) (which covers prior perfected security interests). This notification must occur before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. Since Alpine Finance failed to notify Mountain Bank of its PMSI in the new inventory prior to Canyon Outfitters taking possession, Alpine Finance’s PMSI does not have priority over Mountain Bank’s existing security interest. Therefore, Mountain Bank’s security interest in the inventory remains superior.

The scenario involves a secured party, Alpine Bank, and a debtor, Bear Creek Outfitters, which is a Utah-based business. Bear Creek Outfitters has granted Alpine Bank a security interest in its inventory, which includes specialized outdoor equipment. The question revolves around the perfection of this security interest in inventory when the inventory is located at a seasonal retail outlet in Wyoming. Under Utah’s Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9, the general rule for perfection of a security interest in goods, including inventory, is that it is perfected by filing a financing statement in the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. For a registered organization, this is the jurisdiction of its chief executive office or, if it has no chief executive office, its principal residence. In this case, Bear Creek Outfitters is a Utah entity, and its chief executive office is in Utah. Therefore, the initial perfection of Alpine Bank’s security interest in the inventory would be accomplished by filing a financing statement in Utah. However, the UCC also addresses situations where collateral is moved or located in a different jurisdiction. While the security interest remains continuously perfected for a period of time after removal (typically four months under UCC § 9-316(d)), if the collateral is to be used or located in another jurisdiction for an extended period, the secured party must re-perfect in that new jurisdiction to maintain its priority. In this scenario, the inventory is *located* in Wyoming at a seasonal retail outlet. While the initial filing is in Utah based on the debtor’s location, if the intent is for the inventory to remain in Wyoming for the duration of the retail season, and the debtor’s principal place of business remains in Utah, the secured party’s interest may need to be noted in Wyoming to ensure continued perfection against third parties who might acquire rights in that specific location. However, the primary and most critical step for perfection, establishing the secured party’s rights against the debtor and most third parties, is filing in the debtor’s location. The question asks about the *initial* perfection. Utah UCC § 9-301(1) states that the location of goods is generally not determinative of the location of perfection for inventory. Instead, perfection is governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. For a registered organization like Bear Creek Outfitters, this is Utah. Therefore, filing the financing statement in Utah is the correct method for initial perfection.