Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 104.9311 governs the priority of security interests in goods that become fixtures. A security interest in a fixture is subordinate to the interest of a person who has a perfected security interest in the real property if that person’s interest was perfected before the goods became fixtures. However, NRS 104.9334 provides an exception for purchase-money security interests in fixtures. A PMSI in a fixture has priority over a conflicting interest of an owner or occupant of the real property if the PMSI is perfected by a fixture filing before the goods become fixtures or within twenty days thereafter. In this scenario, the security agreement between Reno Equipment and Sierra Construction clearly grants a security interest in the specialized drilling equipment. Sierra Construction’s filing of a fixture filing on October 15th, prior to the equipment becoming a fixture on November 1st, satisfies the requirements of NRS 104.9334 for establishing priority for a purchase-money security interest in fixtures. Therefore, Reno Equipment’s security interest, properly perfected as a PMSI in a fixture, takes precedence over any prior or subsequent interest in the real property that does not itself qualify for a superior fixture filing. The key is the timing of the fixture filing relative to when the goods become affixed to the realty and the nature of the security interest as a purchase-money security interest.

In Nevada, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in consumer goods generally has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same goods even without filing. This is established by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 104.9324(1). The core principle is that a PMSI holder who perfects their interest by taking possession or filing a financing statement before or within twenty days after the debtor receives possession of the collateral generally achieves superpriority. However, for consumer goods, perfection is often automatic upon attachment, and filing is not required for the PMSI to be effective against most other parties, including unsecured creditors and even prior perfected secured parties, unless that prior party has filed or taken possession. The question hinges on the specific scenario of a PMSI in inventory versus a prior perfected security interest in after-acquired inventory. Under NRS 104.9324(2), a PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory if the PMSI requirements are met. These requirements include that the PMSI must be perfected when the debtor receives possession of the inventory, and the PMSI holder must give an authenticated notification to any prior secured party that the debtor will be acquiring inventory on which the PMSI holder has a security interest. This notification must be sent within five years before the debtor receives possession of the inventory covered by the PMSI. If these conditions are met, the PMSI in inventory will generally take priority over a previously perfected security interest in after-acquired inventory. Therefore, when a lender has a perfected security interest in a retailer’s after-acquired inventory and a new supplier provides inventory to the retailer, taking a PMSI in that specific inventory, the supplier’s PMSI will prevail if the notification requirements of NRS 104.9324(2) are satisfied. The twenty-day grace period for filing after possession, which applies to PMSIs in other types of collateral, does not negate the notification requirement for PMSIs in inventory.

In Nevada, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in consumer goods generally becomes perfected automatically upon attachment, without the need for filing a financing statement. This is explicitly provided for under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 104.9309(1). Consumer goods are defined as goods primarily used or bought for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. When a creditor finances the purchase of a bicycle for a debtor’s personal use, and that creditor holds a security interest in the bicycle to secure the repayment of the loan used to acquire it, that security interest qualifies as a PMSI in consumer goods. Therefore, for perfection, the creditor does not need to file a UCC-1 financing statement in Nevada. The perfection occurs by operation of law at the moment the security interest attaches. This automatic perfection is a significant exception to the general rule that filing is required for perfection in most collateral types.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in accounts that arise from the sale of goods by a seller who is located in Nevada and sells to buyers in California, with the collateral being held by a third-party bailee in Arizona. Under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 104 (Uniform Commercial Code), specifically concerning secured transactions, the location of the debtor and the location of the collateral are critical for determining the proper place to file a financing statement. For accounts, the general rule under UCC § 9-307 is that the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor is located governs perfection. In this scenario, the debtor, “Desert Gems Inc.,” is located in Nevada. Therefore, to perfect its security interest in the accounts, “Mountain Jewelers LLC” must file a financing statement in Nevada, as this is where the debtor is located. The fact that the goods are sold to buyers in California does not change the location of the debtor for the purpose of perfection of accounts. Similarly, the location of the bailee in Arizona is relevant if the collateral were tangible goods that the bailee possessed, but for accounts, which are intangible rights to payment, the debtor’s location is paramount. Perfection of a security interest in accounts is typically achieved by filing a financing statement. The UCC provides that if a debtor is located in one jurisdiction and the collateral is in another, the law of the debtor’s location generally governs. Nevada follows this principle.

The question revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts that are part of a sale of a business. In Nevada, under UCC Article 9, a security interest in accounts is generally perfected by filing a financing statement. However, UCC § 9-109(d)(3) provides an exception for the sale of accounts. This exception states that Article 9 does not apply to a sale of accounts as part of a sale of the business out of which they arose. This means that a security interest granted in accounts that are intrinsically tied to the sale of a business, where the accounts are not merely collateral for a separate loan but are the business assets being transferred, does not require a UCC filing for perfection. Instead, the perfection is typically achieved through the transfer of possession or control, or in some cases, automatically upon attachment, depending on the nature of the transaction. The scenario describes a business sale where accounts are a component, implying this exception applies. Therefore, no UCC filing is required for perfection of the security interest in these accounts.

The core issue here is the priority of security interests when a debtor defaults on a loan secured by inventory. In Nevada, as governed by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory generally has priority over a prior perfected security interest in the same collateral, provided certain conditions are met. For a PMSI in inventory to achieve this superpriority, the secured party must have perfected its security interest, and the debtor must have received possession of the inventory. Crucially, the PMSI holder must also give notification in accordance with UCC § 9-324(b) to any prior secured party who has filed a financing statement covering the inventory. This notification must inform the prior secured party that the PMSI holder expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and must describe the inventory. Without this notification, the PMSI in inventory does not have priority over the prior perfected security interest. In this scenario, while “Capital Bank” has a prior perfected security interest in all of “Desert Sands Enterprises'” inventory, and “Valley Credit Union” has a PMSI in the new electronics inventory, Valley Credit Union failed to provide the required notification to Capital Bank. Therefore, Capital Bank’s prior perfected security interest retains its priority over Valley Credit Union’s PMSI.

The core issue here is the priority of security interests when collateral is transferred. In Nevada, as under Article 9 of the UCC, a buyer of goods takes the collateral free of a security interest if the buyer is a buyer in ordinary course of business (BIOC), unless the buyer knows the sale is outside the ordinary course of business or the sale is in satisfaction of a prior debt. A BIOC is a person that buys goods in good faith, without knowledge that the sale violates the rights of the secured party or other secured party or lienholder in the goods, and such goods are not all or substantially all of the assets of the seller’s business. Here, “Desert Sands Auto Sales” is a dealer in vehicles, and “Reno RV Emporium” is a dealer in recreational vehicles. When Desert Sands Auto Sales purchased the RV from “Mountain View Motors,” which was a dealer of recreational vehicles, Desert Sands Auto Sales was acting as a buyer in the ordinary course of business. Mountain View Motors had obtained the RV from “Nevada Mobile Homes,” which had a validly perfected security interest in its inventory, including the RV. The sale from Mountain View Motors to Desert Sands Auto Sales was in the ordinary course of Mountain View Motors’ business. Therefore, Desert Sands Auto Sales, as a BIOC, takes the RV free of Nevada Mobile Homes’ perfected security interest, assuming Desert Sands Auto Sales had no knowledge that the sale violated Nevada Mobile Homes’ rights. The perfection of Nevada Mobile Homes’ security interest in the inventory of Mountain View Motors does not prevent a BIOC from taking free of that interest. The UCC provides specific protections for BIOCs to facilitate commerce.

The scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. Under Nevada law, specifically NRS 104.9324, a PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory if certain conditions are met. These conditions include that the PMSI holder must perfect its security interest by filing a financing statement and that the PMSI holder must give an authenticated notification to any prior secured party of record that claims an interest in the inventory. The notification must be sent before the debtor receives possession of the inventory covered by the PMSI. In this case, Stellar Corp. has a PMSI in the new inventory acquired by Desert Dynamics. Stellar Corp. filed its financing statement on May 1st and sent authenticated notification to Horizon Bank on April 28th, which was before Desert Dynamics received the inventory on May 5th. Horizon Bank’s prior perfected security interest in all of Desert Dynamics’ existing and after-acquired inventory is therefore subordinate to Stellar Corp.’s PMSI. Stellar Corp. has priority with respect to the new inventory. The key is the timely filing and notification, which Stellar Corp. satisfied. The perfection of Stellar’s PMSI occurs when it attaches, but its priority over Horizon Bank’s pre-existing security interest is established by meeting the requirements of NRS 104.9324. The UCC’s framework for PMSI priority in inventory is designed to encourage financing of new goods by allowing PMSI lenders to gain priority over earlier lenders who have a general security interest in all of the debtor’s assets, including after-acquired inventory.

In Nevada, under UCC Article 9, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in consumer goods generally achieves automatic perfection upon attachment. However, this automatic perfection is subject to specific rules. For a PMSI in inventory, perfection requires filing a financing statement. For equipment, perfection also requires filing. The key distinction for automatic perfection of a PMSI is typically limited to consumer goods, meaning goods used or bought for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. In this scenario, the advanced drone system, while potentially used for personal hobbies, is described as being acquired by “Desert Skies Aerial Photography LLC” for business purposes, specifically for capturing high-resolution aerial imagery for commercial clients. Therefore, it is considered equipment, not consumer goods. Consequently, to achieve perfection against third-party claims, Desert Skies Aerial Photography LLC must file a financing statement in accordance with Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 104, specifically NRS 104.9310. The acquisition of the drone by the LLC for business use means it falls outside the scope of automatic perfection for PMSIs in consumer goods. The security interest attaches when the debtor has rights in the collateral, value has been given, and a security agreement exists. However, attachment alone does not grant priority against third parties without perfection. Filing a financing statement provides notice and establishes priority.

In Nevada, when a secured party has a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory, perfection must occur by filing a financing statement before the debtor receives possession of the collateral. Additionally, the secured party must send an authenticated notification to any other secured party or lienholder who has filed a financing statement covering the same goods or has filed a UCC-1 covering the same collateral, and that notification must state that the secured party has or expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and describe the inventory. This notification must be sent within five years before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. The purpose of this notification requirement is to alert prior secured parties of the new PMSI, allowing them to take appropriate action. Failure to provide this notification renders the PMSI ineffective against those prior secured parties. Therefore, in the scenario provided, if the notification was sent after the filing of the conflicting financing statement and delivery of the goods, it would not be effective against the earlier secured party.

The question revolves around the concept of attachment and perfection of a security interest under Nevada’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, specifically concerning after-acquired property and the priority of competing secured parties. The scenario involves a security agreement granting a security interest in “all inventory, now owned or hereafter acquired.” The initial secured party, Capital Financial, properly attached and perfected its security interest in the debtor’s existing inventory. Subsequently, the debtor acquired new inventory. The second secured party, Regional Bank, also obtained a security interest in the debtor’s inventory, including after-acquired inventory, and perfected its interest. Under UCC § 9-204, a security agreement may create or provide for a security interest in after-acquired property. This means the security interest attaches to such property as and when the debtor acquires rights in it. In Nevada, as in most jurisdictions, the attachment of a security interest occurs when value has been given, the debtor has rights in the collateral or the power to transfer rights in the collateral to a secured party, and a security agreement is in authenticated record that describes the collateral. Perfection, on the other hand, provides notice to third parties and establishes priority. Perfection is typically achieved by filing a financing statement or, in some cases, by possession or control. When a security interest in after-acquired property attaches, it generally takes priority over a later-perfected security interest in the same collateral. The UCC prioritizes security interests based on the order of perfection. If two secured parties have perfected security interests in the same collateral, the first to file or first to perfect generally has priority (UCC § 9-322). In this case, Capital Financial’s security interest attached to the new inventory when the debtor acquired it, and since Capital Financial had already perfected its interest in the original inventory and the after-acquired property clause covers the new inventory, its perfected security interest in the new inventory relates back to the time of its initial perfection. Regional Bank’s later perfection means Capital Financial has priority. The critical factor is the timing of perfection relative to the acquisition of the collateral by the debtor and the attachment of the security interest. Capital Financial’s prior perfection in the collateral class, which includes after-acquired inventory, grants it priority over Regional Bank’s subsequently perfected security interest in the same after-acquired inventory.

In Nevada, under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the perfection of a security interest in deposit accounts is generally achieved by control. Control over a deposit account is established when the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained. Alternatively, control can be obtained if the debtor authenticates a security agreement granting the secured party control, and the bank agrees to follow the secured party’s instructions regarding the account. This agreement is often referred to as a “control agreement.” Without control, a security interest in a deposit account is unperfected, making it vulnerable to claims by other creditors, including a bankruptcy trustee. The question tests the understanding of the specific method of perfection for deposit accounts, distinguishing it from perfection methods for other types of collateral. The scenario describes a situation where a security interest is granted in a deposit account, and the critical element for perfection is the secured party’s control. The absence of a control agreement or the secured party being the bank itself means the security interest remains unperfected. Therefore, the security interest is subordinate to a subsequent perfected security interest or a buyer of the account.

The scenario describes a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. Under Nevada law, specifically NRS 104.9324, a PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory if the PMSI holder meets certain requirements. These requirements include: (1) the PMSI is perfected when the debtor receives possession of the inventory; and (2) the PMSI lender gives an authenticated notification to any other secured party whose security interest is known to the PMSI lender or who has filed a financing statement covering the inventory. This notification must be sent within five years before the debtor receives possession of the inventory and must state that the sender expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor, describing by item or type. In this case, “Nevada Auto Finance” has a PMSI in the inventory of “Desert Cars Inc.” and properly files its financing statement before Desert Cars Inc. receives possession of the vehicles. However, “Reno Bank” already has a perfected security interest in all of Desert Cars Inc.’s existing and after-acquired inventory. For Nevada Auto Finance’s PMSI to have priority over Reno Bank’s earlier perfected security interest, Nevada Auto Finance must have sent the required notification to Reno Bank. Since the facts explicitly state that Nevada Auto Finance did not send any notification to Reno Bank, its PMSI will not have priority over Reno Bank’s earlier perfected security interest. Therefore, Reno Bank retains priority.

The core issue here is the priority of a security interest in after-acquired property when a purchase-money security interest (PMSI) is involved. In Nevada, as under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a PMSI generally has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same goods if the PMSI is perfected when the debtor receives possession of the collateral or within a specified period thereafter. For inventory, the PMSI holder must also give notice to any prior secured party with a conflicting security interest in that inventory. In this scenario, “Desert Sands Enterprises” (DSE) has a security interest in all of “Reno Robotics Inc.’s” (RRI) existing and after-acquired inventory, which was perfected by filing. “Vegas Valley Ventures” (VVV) subsequently extends credit to RRI and takes a PMSI in specific new robotic components that RRI will acquire for its assembly line, which constitutes inventory. VVV properly perfects its PMSI by filing before RRI receives the new components. Crucially, VVV also provides the required notification to DSE regarding its PMSI in the after-acquired inventory. When RRI acquires the new robotic components, VVV’s PMSI attaches to these components. Because VVV perfected its PMSI within the statutory timeframe and provided the necessary notice to the prior secured party (DSE), its security interest in these specific components takes priority over DSE’s earlier-filed, but non-PMSI, security interest in after-acquired inventory. This priority extends to the collateral covered by the PMSI, which are the new robotic components. DSE’s security interest, while perfected, is subordinate to VVV’s PMSI in the newly acquired inventory because of the PMSI’s special priority rules.

Under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 104, specifically Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in equipment grants the secured party special priority rights. For a PMSI to be perfected and achieve this priority, the financing statement must be filed before or within twenty days after the debtor receives possession of the collateral. Additionally, the secured party must give any other secured party whose security interest is already perfected in the collateral written notification of the PMSI before the debtor receives possession of the collateral. This notification requirement is crucial for ensuring that prior perfected secured parties are aware of the new PMSI and can adjust their positions accordingly. Failure to meet either the filing deadline or the notification requirement will result in the PMSI being subordinate to prior perfected security interests in the same collateral. In this scenario, Apex Equipment Finance’s security interest was perfected by filing on April 15th. However, the debtor received possession of the equipment on April 1st. Apex’s financing statement was filed on April 20th, which falls within the twenty-day grace period after possession. Crucially, Apex did not provide prior written notification to Zenith Capital, whose security interest was already perfected. Therefore, Apex’s PMSI, despite being filed within the statutory period, is subordinate to Zenith Capital’s prior perfected security interest because the notification requirement was not met. The priority of Zenith Capital’s security interest is maintained as of its original filing date.

Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 104.9307 governs the priority of security interests in goods covered by a certificate of title. When a security interest is perfected by notation on a certificate of title issued by a jurisdiction that follows a certificate of title system, such as Nevada, that perfection is generally effective against subsequent purchasers and holders of security interests. NRS 104.9307(b) specifically addresses this, stating that a security interest in goods covered by a certificate of title, if perfected by compliance with the certificate of title statute, is not subject to the perfection requirements of Article 9. Furthermore, NRS 104.9316(d) clarifies that if a security interest is perfected in one jurisdiction and then the collateral is brought into another jurisdiction, the perfection remains effective for a period of time (typically twenty days) or until the security interest ceases to be perfected under the law of the first jurisdiction, whichever occurs first, unless the security interest is re-perfected in the new jurisdiction. However, the key here is that Nevada follows a certificate of title system for vehicles. Therefore, a security interest properly perfected by notation on a Nevada certificate of title for a vehicle has priority over a subsequently filed, unperfected security interest. The perfection on the certificate of title is the controlling method for vehicles in Nevada, superseding a later, less robust filing.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in collateral that is also subject to a statutory lien. Nevada law, like most jurisdictions, recognizes that certain statutory liens can take priority over even perfected security interests. Specifically, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 108 governs liens, including those for services and improvements. When a mechanic or service provider possesses collateral and has a valid statutory lien for services rendered, that lien generally takes precedence over a previously perfected security interest in the same collateral. This is because the possessory lien is often seen as arising from the ongoing improvement or preservation of the collateral itself. In this scenario, the secured party, “Silver State Auto Finance,” perfected its security interest in the vehicle by filing a financing statement with the Nevada Secretary of State. This filing establishes the secured party’s rights against subsequent claims and unperfected security interests. However, “Reno Roadside Repairs” possesses the vehicle and has a claim for repair services. Under Nevada law, a repairman’s possessory lien for services rendered to a vehicle is a statutory lien that arises from the possession of the collateral. Such statutory liens, particularly those based on possession for services that enhance or preserve the collateral’s value, typically have priority over prior perfected security interests. Therefore, Reno Roadside Repairs’ possessory lien for the unpaid repair bill would likely have priority over Silver State Auto Finance’s security interest. The secured party’s recourse would be to satisfy the repair lien to gain possession of the vehicle, or potentially negotiate with the repair shop.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in accounts that are part of a sale of a business. Nevada law, like UCC Article 9, generally requires filing a financing statement to perfect a security interest in accounts. However, there’s a crucial exception for the sale of accounts. When accounts are sold, the transaction is typically treated as a sale, not a secured transaction, unless the seller retains some residual interest or the transaction is structured to be a disguised security arrangement. In this scenario, the sale of the restaurant’s accounts receivable to a factoring company is a straightforward sale of accounts. Under UCC § 9-109(a)(3), Article 9 applies to a sale of accounts. However, UCC § 9-309(a) provides that no financing statement need be filed to perfect a security interest in a security entitlement, a securities account, or a commodity account. More importantly, UCC § 9-310(a) states that a financing statement must be filed to perfect all security interests except as otherwise provided in UCC § 9-310(b). UCC § 9-310(b)(1) states that the filing of a financing statement is not required to perfect a security interest in collateral under UCC § 9-309. UCC § 9-309(2) addresses the perfection of security interests in accounts that are part of a sale of a business. This section states that a security interest in accounts that are part of a sale of a business is automatically perfected. This automatic perfection applies because the UCC treats the sale of accounts as a true sale, not a secured loan, and therefore does not require a filing to establish priority. The factoring company has a perfected security interest in the accounts from the moment the sale is effective, without needing to file a financing statement in Nevada.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts that arise from the sale of goods by a seller located in Nevada, where the buyer is also located in Nevada, but the financing statement is filed in California. Under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 104, which largely adopts Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the general rule for perfection of a security interest in accounts is that the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor is located governs. NRS 104.9301 states that the effectiveness of a security statement, the existence of a security interest, and the enforceability of a security interest are governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. In this case, both the debtor (the seller of the goods) and the collateral (the accounts receivable generated from those sales) are located in Nevada. Therefore, perfection must occur according to Nevada law. Filing a financing statement in California would be ineffective to perfect the security interest in accounts located in Nevada, as California law would not govern the perfection of accounts generated by a Nevada-domiciled debtor. The correct place to file a financing statement to perfect a security interest in accounts, where the debtor is located in Nevada, is in Nevada.

The core issue revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts, specifically those arising from the sale of goods by a merchant. Under Nevada’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, a security interest in accounts is generally perfected by filing a financing statement in the appropriate jurisdiction. However, UCC § 9-309(2) provides an exception for certain “consumer-goods transactions” where a purchase-money security interest in consumer goods can be perfected automatically without filing. This exception applies when the goods sold are consumer goods and the security interest is a purchase-money security interest. In this scenario, the accounts arise from the sale of tangible personal property that constitutes consumer goods in the hands of the purchasers. The merchant, as the secured party, has a purchase-money security interest in these accounts because the accounts are proceeds from the sale of goods for which the merchant provided value. Since the purchasers are individuals buying for personal, family, or household purposes, the goods are consumer goods. Therefore, the merchant’s security interest in these accounts is automatically perfected at the time it attaches, without the need for filing a financing statement. The exception is limited to accounts arising from the sale of consumer goods. Accounts arising from the sale of inventory or equipment would require filing. The key is the nature of the goods sold to the end consumer.

The core issue here is determining the proper place for filing a financing statement to perfect a security interest in a deposit account when the debtor is a Nevada limited liability company whose chief executive office is located in Nevada. Under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 104.9301 and 104.9305, a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is achieved when the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained, or when the debtor has agreed in writing that the bank will comply with the secured party’s instructions regarding the deposit account. However, the question asks about the filing of a financing statement, which is generally not the method for perfecting a security interest in a deposit account, as control is the exclusive method. Therefore, any filing of a financing statement would be ineffective for perfection. The filing office requirements for a financing statement are generally governed by the location of the debtor. For a registered organization like a Nevada LLC, the filing office is the office designated for filing a financing statement concerning the organization, which is typically the Secretary of State’s office in the state of organization. In this case, the debtor is a Nevada LLC, and its chief executive office is in Nevada. Therefore, if a financing statement were the correct method of perfection, it would be filed in Nevada. However, since control is the exclusive method for perfecting a security interest in a deposit account, and the question implies a filing scenario, the most accurate response is that filing is not the correct method for perfection. The question is designed to test the understanding that deposit accounts are a special class of collateral where control, not filing, is the exclusive perfection method under Article 9 of the UCC, as adopted in Nevada. The UCC explicitly states that filing is not required or effective for perfection of a security interest in deposit accounts.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts receivable. Under Nevada’s Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9, a security interest in accounts is generally perfected by filing a financing statement. However, there is an exception for certain “isolated” transactions. Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 104.9309(2) specifically addresses this, stating that a security interest in accounts that constitutes a sale of accounts, or an interest in accounts, that is part of a sale of the business out of which they arose, or that is created by an assignment of a right to payment under a contract to an assignee that is engaged in the business of developing, licensing, or selling the contract, is automatically perfected. In this case, the assignment of accounts is to a factoring company that is in the business of factoring, which involves purchasing accounts receivable. This type of transaction, where accounts are sold to a factor, is typically considered an isolated transaction or a sale of accounts as contemplated by the statute, and thus, perfection occurs automatically without the need for filing a financing statement. Therefore, the factoring company’s security interest is perfected upon attachment.

Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 104, which enacts Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, governs secured transactions. When a debtor defaults on a secured obligation, the secured party generally has the right to repossess the collateral. However, this repossession must be conducted without breaching the peace. A breach of the peace occurs when actions taken during repossession are likely to cause violence or disturb public order. Factors considered include the use of force, threats, intimidation, or entry into a debtor’s dwelling without consent. If a secured party or their agent enters a debtor’s home or a locked garage attached to a home without permission to repossess collateral, this typically constitutes a breach of the peace. The statute aims to balance the secured party’s right to reclaim collateral with the debtor’s right to privacy and security. Failure to adhere to the “no breach of the peace” rule can result in liability for the secured party.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account, which is governed by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 104, specifically Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Under NRS 104.9312(1), a security interest in a deposit account as original collateral can only be perfected by control. Control of a deposit account is achieved 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 instructions from the secured party concerning the deposit account, as outlined in NRS 104.9104. In this scenario, “Nevada Bank” is the bank where the deposit account is held. Therefore, Nevada Bank has automatic perfection of its security interest in the deposit account by virtue of being the bank maintaining the account, which constitutes control. The filing of a financing statement, while generally required for perfection of many types of collateral, is explicitly stated as not being a method of perfection for deposit accounts as original collateral under NRS 104.9312(1). Consequently, the security interest of “Nevada Bank” is perfected. “Capital Corp,” having only filed a financing statement and not obtained control over the deposit account, has an unperfected security interest in the deposit account. In a dispute over the collateral, the perfected security interest of Nevada Bank would take priority over the unperfected security interest of Capital Corp.

Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 104.9311 governs the priority of security interests in fixtures. A security interest in a fixture is subordinate to the conflicting interest of an encumbrancer or owner of the real property that arises before the security interest is perfected. However, a perfected security interest in a fixture has priority over a subsequent encumbrancer or owner of the real property if the security interest is perfected before the real property is encumbered. The critical element here is the timing of perfection relative to the encumbrance of the real property. In this scenario, Apex Bank perfected its security interest in the specialized manufacturing equipment, which qualifies as a fixture, on January 15, 2023. Subsequently, on March 10, 2023, Silver State Properties obtained a mortgage on the real property. Since Apex Bank’s security interest was perfected *before* Silver State Properties’ mortgage was recorded, Apex Bank’s security interest in the equipment, as a fixture, has priority over the mortgage. This priority is established by NRS 104.9311(b). The UCC generally favors the first to perfect, and fixture filings are a specific method of perfection that relates security interests in goods to real property. The fact that the equipment was installed *after* the mortgage was recorded is irrelevant to the priority of the perfected security interest in the fixture, as the perfection occurred prior to the subsequent encumbrance of the real property.

In Nevada, under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in consumer goods generally attains automatic perfection upon attachment. This means that the secured party does not need to file a financing statement or take possession of the collateral to establish their priority against most other parties. However, this automatic perfection is subject to certain limitations and exceptions. For instance, if the collateral is a fixture or a motor vehicle that requires titling, automatic perfection is not sufficient, and filing or other specific procedures are necessary. Additionally, while a PMSI holder has automatic perfection in consumer goods, a buyer in the ordinary course of business who purchases such goods from the consumer debtor takes free of the security interest, even if perfected. The question concerns the perfection of a PMSI in a mobile home purchased by an individual for personal, family, or household purposes. Nevada law, specifically NRS 104.9309(1) and NRS 104.9310(1), governs PMSIs. NRS 104.9309(1) states that a security interest in consumer goods is perfected if it has attached. However, NRS 104.9311(1) requires compliance with a certificate of title statute for perfection of a security interest in goods covered by a certificate of title. Mobile homes in Nevada are typically considered vehicles requiring certificates of title. Therefore, to perfect a security interest in a mobile home, the secured party must comply with the certificate of title provisions, which usually involves having the security interest noted on the certificate of title. The scenario describes a mobile home, which is a good typically requiring a certificate of title in Nevada. Therefore, the automatic perfection rule for consumer goods does not apply; perfection requires compliance with the certificate of title statute.

Under Nevada’s Uniform Commercial Code Article 9, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory generally requires both attachment and perfection to gain priority over other creditors. Perfection is typically achieved by filing a financing statement. However, there is a special rule for PMSIs in inventory. For a PMSI in inventory to have priority over a buyer of that inventory, the secured party must have perfected its security interest *before* the buyer receives possession of the goods. Furthermore, if another secured party has a prior perfected security interest in the same inventory, the PMSI holder must also provide notification to that prior secured party. This notification must be sent in a timely manner, typically before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. The notification must state that the secured party expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and must describe the inventory. The question focuses on the timing of perfection and notification relative to the debtor’s receipt of inventory and the buyer’s acquisition of rights. The scenario involves a lender taking a security interest in a car dealership’s inventory. A buyer then purchases a vehicle from the dealership. The crucial point for priority against the buyer is that the lender’s PMSI must be perfected before the buyer obtains possession of the vehicle. The notification requirement is primarily for priority against other secured parties. Therefore, if the lender perfected its PMSI by filing and the buyer took possession of the vehicle before the lender filed, the buyer would likely have priority over the lender, assuming the buyer qualifies as a buyer in the ordinary course of business. The explanation of the calculation involves determining the relative timing of perfection and the buyer’s possession. If the lender filed on June 15th and the buyer took possession on June 10th, the buyer’s possession predates the perfection.

This question addresses the perfection of security interests in fixtures under Nevada law, specifically referencing Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 104.9334. Perfection of a security interest in a fixture requires filing a fixture filing in the real property records of the county where the affected real property is located. Such a fixture filing must describe the real property. Furthermore, the security interest is generally subordinate to a conflicting interest of a subsequent purchaser or encumbrancer of the real property who has perfected their interest and is typically a buyer or encumbrancer of record. However, an exception exists for readily removable factory-assembled components or consumer goods that are installed in or become part of a manufactured home. In this scenario, the industrial milling machinery is affixed to the real property, making it a fixture. The lender perfected its security interest by filing a fixture filing in the appropriate county records, which is the correct method for fixtures. The subsequent mortgage holder acquired an interest in the real property. Under NRS 104.9334(d), a perfected security interest in fixtures has priority over a conflicting interest of an owner of the real property, but this priority is subject to the exceptions for subsequent purchasers or encumbrancers of the real property who are buyers or encumbrancers of record and who purchase or mortgage the real property for value and record their interest. However, the statute also states that a perfected fixture filing also has priority over a subsequent encumbrancer of the real property if the fixture filing is filed before the mortgage is recorded. Since the lender filed its fixture filing on January 15th and the mortgage was recorded on February 1st, the fixture filing predates the mortgage. Therefore, the lender’s security interest has priority.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the priority of security interests when a debtor moves collateral from one state to another. Nevada law, like most states, follows the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) for secured transactions. Specifically, UCC § 9-316 addresses the priority of a security interest perfected in one jurisdiction when the collateral is subsequently brought into another jurisdiction. Nevada has adopted Article 9 of the UCC, and its provisions govern these situations. When collateral is covered by a certificate of title, perfection and the effect of perfection generally continue for a period of four months after the collateral is brought into Nevada, or until the perfection lapses, whichever occurs first, provided that the security interest was perfected in the jurisdiction where the collateral was located when the security interest attached. This four-month grace period is crucial. If a subsequent buyer or a competing secured party obtains an interest in the collateral during this four-month period, their rights are generally subordinate to the prior perfected security interest. However, if the secured party fails to re-perfect their interest in Nevada within that four-month period by satisfying Nevada’s perfection requirements (which would typically involve filing a termination statement or re-filing if applicable, though for titled vehicles, notation on the certificate of title is paramount), their perfected status may be lost in relation to those who acquired rights in Nevada without knowledge of the prior security interest. In this case, the security interest in the vehicle was perfected in California. The vehicle was then brought to Nevada. The four-month period begins when the vehicle is brought into Nevada. If the secured party did not take steps to note their lien on the Nevada certificate of title within four months of the vehicle’s arrival in Nevada, their perfected security interest could become unperfected as against a buyer who takes delivery of the collateral without knowledge of the security interest. Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 104.9316(1) and (2) outline this principle. The key is that a buyer of goods, taking delivery of the collateral without knowledge of the security interest, and for value, generally takes free of a security interest that is not perfected in the new jurisdiction. Since the security interest was not noted on the Nevada certificate of title within the statutory grace period, it is likely unperfected in Nevada as against a bona fide purchaser. Therefore, the buyer in Nevada takes the vehicle free of the prior security interest.

The scenario involves a debtor, “Desert Bloom Nurseries,” located in Nevada, granting a security interest in its inventory to “Mountain Capital LLC,” also based in Nevada. The security agreement was properly perfected by filing a financing statement in Nevada. Subsequently, Desert Bloom Nurseries also operates a branch in Arizona and, without Mountain Capital’s knowledge, grants a second, unperfected security interest in the *same* inventory to “Canyon Credit Union,” an Arizona entity. When Desert Bloom defaults, both Mountain Capital and Canyon Credit Union claim rights to the inventory. Under Nevada’s UCC Article 9, specifically NRS 104.9322, a perfected security interest generally has priority over an unperfected security interest. Furthermore, if collateral is moved to another jurisdiction, perfection in the original jurisdiction remains effective for a period, typically four months, before perfection in the new jurisdiction is required. In this case, Mountain Capital’s security interest is perfected in Nevada, which is the location of the debtor and the collateral at the time of attachment and perfection. Canyon Credit Union’s security interest is unperfected. Therefore, Mountain Capital’s perfected security interest takes priority over Canyon Credit Union’s unperfected security interest, regardless of the collateral’s potential movement to Arizona, as the perfection in Nevada was valid at the time of the dispute. The question tests the fundamental principle of perfection and priority under Article 9, emphasizing that perfection is key to establishing superior rights in collateral against other creditors.