The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Maine’s UCC Article 9, 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 debtor has agreed to the bank’s disposition of the funds in the account. In this scenario, Pine Tree Bank filed a financing statement, which is the appropriate method for perfecting many types of collateral, including general intangibles and accounts. However, for deposit accounts, filing is insufficient for perfection. The security agreement grants Pine Tree Bank a security interest in all of the debtor’s assets, including its deposit accounts. While the security agreement is valid between the debtor and Pine Tree Bank, its perfection against third parties hinges on compliance with the perfection rules for the specific collateral. Because Pine Tree Bank did not obtain control over the deposit account at Coastal Bank, its security interest in that account remains unperfected. Therefore, when Atlantic Credit Union, which has a perfected security interest in the same deposit account by virtue of having control, seeks to enforce its rights, Pine Tree Bank’s unperfected interest is subordinate to Atlantic Credit Union’s perfected interest. The filing of a financing statement by Pine Tree Bank is a nullity for the purpose of perfecting its security interest in the deposit account.

The core issue here is the priority of security interests when a buyer in the ordinary course of business purchases collateral from a seller who is in the business of selling goods of that kind. Under Maine’s Uniform Commercial Code, specifically UCC § 9-320 (formerly § 9-307(1)), a buyer in the ordinary course of business takes free of a security interest created by their seller, even if the security interest is perfected and the buyer knows of its existence. This protection is a fundamental aspect of facilitating commerce by ensuring that buyers of inventory can purchase without the burden of investigating every prior security interest. The secured party, Coastal Bank, perfected its security interest in Pinecone Lumber’s inventory. However, when Pinecone Lumber, a merchant dealing in lumber, sold a consignment of lumber to Forest Goods, Inc., a buyer in the ordinary course of business, Forest Goods took the lumber free of Coastal Bank’s security interest. This is because Pinecone Lumber was the seller, and Forest Goods purchased from its inventory in good faith and without knowledge that the sale violated the security agreement. The fact that Coastal Bank’s security interest was perfected is irrelevant to the buyer in the ordinary course of business’s status. The UCC prioritizes free commerce in inventory over the security interest holder’s ability to reclaim goods sold in the ordinary course by the debtor. Therefore, Forest Goods’ interest in the lumber is superior to Coastal Bank’s security interest.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in collateral that is subject to a purchase money security interest (PMSI) and the priority rules when a financing statement is filed after the debtor receives possession of the collateral but before the secured party extends new value. In Maine, as under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, perfection generally occurs upon attachment, but for priority purposes, filing is often crucial. A PMSI holder has special priority rights. To retain PMSI priority against a conflicting security interest in inventory, the PMSI holder must file a financing statement and send a notification to any prior secured party before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. In this scenario, the security interest in the fishing equipment is a PMSI. The first secured party, “Coastal Marine Finance,” perfected its interest by filing on March 1st. The debtor, “Penobscot Fishing Co.,” received possession of the equipment on March 15th. “Atlantic Fisheries Bank” then filed its financing statement on March 20th. The critical event for Atlantic Fisheries Bank to have priority over Coastal Marine Finance’s PMSI in inventory is the filing of its financing statement *before* Penobscot Fishing Co. received possession of the inventory, or within a specified grace period if applicable to non-inventory goods, and the provision of notice to any prior secured party. However, the question states Atlantic Fisheries Bank filed *after* the debtor received possession. Maine’s UCC § 9-324(a) (2016) outlines PMSI priority in inventory. It requires filing perfection and notification to prior secured parties before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. Since Atlantic Fisheries Bank filed its financing statement on March 20th, which is after Penobscot Fishing Co. received possession of the fishing equipment on March 15th, and there is no indication of proper notification to Coastal Marine Finance, Atlantic Fisheries Bank’s security interest will be subordinate to Coastal Marine Finance’s perfected PMSI. The priority is determined by the first to file or perfect, with specific PMSI rules overriding in certain circumstances. Coastal Marine Finance perfected its interest by filing on March 1st, which predates Atlantic Fisheries Bank’s filing and any other action by Atlantic Fisheries Bank. Therefore, Coastal Marine Finance has priority.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts that are part of a sale of a business. Under Maine’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, specifically § 9-109(d)(3), a security interest created by the assignment of a right to payment arising out of the sale of a business, including a sale of a business consisting of a single contract or a combination of contracts, is generally excluded from Article 9’s scope. This exclusion is based on the idea that such assignments are more akin to a sale of assets than a traditional secured loan transaction. Therefore, the filing of a UCC-1 financing statement by Pine Tree Bank for its security interest in the accounts would not be effective to perfect its security interest against subsequent purchasers or creditors of the accounts. The perfection of such an interest would typically be governed by other applicable state law, if any, or simply arise from the transfer of ownership of the accounts. The sale of the business, which included the accounts, transfers ownership of those accounts to Maplewood Enterprises without the need for a UCC filing to establish priority against other claims to those specific accounts.

The core issue revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts receivable generated by a business operating in multiple states, specifically Maine and New Hampshire. Under UCC § 9-307(1), the location of the debtor generally determines the jurisdiction for perfection of security interests in accounts. For a business that is a registered organization, its location is its chief executive office, which is the place from which the chief executive officer directs the chief executive operations of the organization. If the business is not a registered organization, its location is its chief executive office. If it has no chief executive office, it is located at its chief executive office. However, UCC § 9-307(1) states that if the jurisdiction of organization is not the jurisdiction of the chief executive office, the jurisdiction of organization controls. In this scenario, “Coastal Crafts LLC” is a limited liability company, a registered organization. Its jurisdiction of organization is Maine. Even if its chief executive office were in New Hampshire, the perfection of a security interest in its accounts would be governed by Maine law, as Maine is the jurisdiction of organization. Therefore, to perfect its security interest in Coastal Crafts LLC’s accounts, “Pine Financial Corp.” must file a financing statement in Maine. Maine’s UCC Article 9 filing office is the Secretary of State.

The core issue here is determining the proper place to file a financing statement for collateral that is a “general intangible” and is owned by a business debtor located in Maine. Maine Revised Statutes Title 11, Section 9-301, governs the location of filing for perfection of a security interest. For a general intangible, as defined in Maine Revised Statutes Title 11, Section 1-201(42), the proper place to file a financing statement is the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. Maine Revised Statutes Title 11, Section 9-307(b)(1), specifies that a registered organization that is organized under the law of a state is located in that state. Therefore, if the debtor, “Coastal Charters LLC,” is registered under the laws of Maine, its location for filing purposes under Article 9 is Maine. The collateral being “future fishing quotas” falls under the definition of a general intangible. Consequently, the financing statement must be filed in Maine.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Maine UCC Article 9, a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is defined in UCC § 9-104 as either becoming the bank’s customer with respect to the deposit account, or agreeing with the bank that the bank will comply with instructions from the secured party regarding the deposit account without further consent from the debtor. In this scenario, “Coastal Bank” is the secured party and has a security agreement with “Lighthouse Marine Services Inc.” covering its accounts receivable, which includes the deposit account at “Harbor Trust Bank.” However, Lighthouse Marine Services Inc. has not taken any action to gain control over the deposit account at Harbor Trust Bank. Coastal Bank’s filing a financing statement is generally effective for perfection of security interests in accounts, but it is not sufficient for perfection in deposit accounts. Perfection in deposit accounts requires control. Since Coastal Bank has not obtained control of the deposit account at Harbor Trust Bank, its security interest in that specific deposit account remains unperfected. Therefore, if Harbor Trust Bank were to take action to collect on its own debt from Lighthouse Marine Services Inc. using funds in the deposit account, Harbor Trust Bank would have priority as a perfected secured party or, at a minimum, a right of recoupment or setoff against the funds in the account, which would supersede Coastal Bank’s unperfected security interest.

The core issue revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account under Maine’s UCC Article 9. Maine, like many states, has specific rules for deposit accounts. Perfection in a deposit account can be achieved through control, as defined in UCC § 9-104. 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 concerning the deposit account, without the account debtor’s consent. In this scenario, the security agreement is between “Coastal Lumber Corp.” and “Atlantic Bank,” and the collateral is Coastal Lumber Corp.’s deposit account at “Harbor National Bank.” Atlantic Bank is not the bank where the deposit account is held. Therefore, for Atlantic Bank to perfect its security interest, it must obtain control over the deposit account at Harbor National Bank. This control is typically achieved by Harbor National Bank becoming a party to a control agreement that acknowledges Atlantic Bank’s control. Without such a control agreement, Atlantic Bank’s security interest, though attached, is unperfected against third-party purchasers and lien creditors. Filing a financing statement is generally not sufficient to perfect a security interest in a deposit account under UCC § 9-312(b)(1). Therefore, the absence of a control agreement means Atlantic Bank’s security interest is unperfected.

The scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. Under Maine’s UCC Article 9, for a PMSI in inventory to have priority over a prior perfected security interest in the same collateral, the PMSI holder must satisfy specific notification requirements. These requirements, found in Maine’s UCC § 9-324(b), mandate that the PMSI holder must give notice to any secured party whose previously filed financing statement covers the inventory. This notice must be sent before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. The notice must also state that the sender has or expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and describe the inventory. The question asks about the effectiveness of the notice sent by Pine State Bank to Granite Bank. Granite Bank had a prior perfected security interest in all of the debtor’s inventory. Pine State Bank acquired a PMSI in new inventory. Pine State Bank sent its notice to Granite Bank on October 1st, and the debtor received the inventory on October 5th. This timing satisfies the requirement that notice be given *before* the debtor receives possession. Therefore, Pine State Bank’s PMSI in the new inventory will have priority over Granite Bank’s earlier perfected security interest in that inventory. The notice provided is sufficient because it was sent prior to the debtor’s receipt of the collateral.

The scenario describes a situation where a secured party has a perfected security interest in inventory and accounts receivable. The debtor subsequently files for bankruptcy. The key issue is the priority of the secured party’s interest against other claims, particularly concerning the proceeds of the collateral. Under Maine’s UCC Article 9, a security interest automatically extends to the identifiable proceeds of collateral. When the debtor sells inventory, the resulting accounts receivable are considered proceeds. If the secured party has a properly perfected security interest in the inventory, that perfection extends to the accounts receivable generated from the sale of that inventory, provided they are identifiable. In this case, the secured party’s lien on the original inventory effectively attaches to the accounts receivable as proceeds. Therefore, the secured party’s perfected security interest in the inventory is perfected in the accounts receivable that are proceeds of that inventory without the need for a separate filing for the accounts receivable, as long as they are identifiable. The bankruptcy filing does not extinguish this perfected security interest in the proceeds.

The scenario involves a buyer in the ordinary course of business purchasing inventory from a merchant who is a debtor under a security agreement. The key legal principle here is the protection afforded to buyers in the ordinary course of business under Maine’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, specifically § 9-320. This section provides that a buyer in ordinary course of business takes free of a security interest created by their seller, even if the security interest is perfected and the buyer knows of its existence, unless the buyer knows that the sale constitutes a disposition of collateral outside the ordinary course of business. In this case, the sale of lumber by “Timberland Trading Co.” to “Coastal Construction LLC” is a sale of inventory, which is the ordinary course of business for Timberland Trading Co. Coastal Construction LLC, as a buyer of this inventory, is a buyer in the ordinary course of business. The fact that “First National Bank of Maine” has a perfected security interest in Timberland Trading Co.’s inventory is relevant, but the protection for Coastal Construction LLC is paramount. Unless Coastal Construction LLC had knowledge that the sale was an unauthorized disposition of collateral, they take the lumber free of First National Bank of Maine’s security interest. The question does not provide any facts suggesting such knowledge. Therefore, Coastal Construction LLC takes the lumber free of the bank’s security interest.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in a mobile home that is affixed to real property. Under Maine’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, particularly 9-309 and 9-310, perfection is typically achieved by filing a financing statement. However, UCC 9-309(d) provides an exception for security interests in goods covered by a certificate of title. Mobile homes, when affixed to land, can become “fixtures.” Maine law, specifically Maine Revised Statutes Title 11, Section 9-334, addresses the priority of security interests in fixtures. To achieve priority over subsequent purchasers of the real property and encumbrancers of the real property, a secured party must file a fixture filing in the real property records. A fixture filing is a UCC-1 financing statement that identifies the collateral as fixtures and includes the name of the record owner of the real property and a description of the real property sufficient to identify it. The filing must occur before the goods become fixtures or within a specified period after they become fixtures. In this scenario, the lender perfected its security interest by filing a UCC-1 financing statement in the personal property records of the Maine Secretary of State. However, the mobile home was subsequently affixed to real property owned by the debtor. When the debtor sold the real property to Ms. Dubois, who was a buyer of the real property, her interest in the real property would generally take precedence over a security interest in the mobile home that was perfected only in personal property records, especially if she had no knowledge of the security interest. For the lender to have priority against Ms. Dubois, who purchased the real property, the lender would have needed to make a fixture filing in the registry of deeds for the county where the real property is located, as per Maine UCC 9-334. The failure to make this fixture filing means the lender’s security interest is subordinate to Ms. Dubois’s interest as a buyer of the real property.

The question revolves around the concept of attachment and perfection of a security interest under Maine’s Uniform Commercial Code Article 9. Attachment occurs when a secured party gives value, the debtor has rights in the collateral, and there is a security agreement authenticated by the debtor that reasonably describes the collateral. Perfection, on the other hand, is the process by which a secured party establishes priority over other creditors and purchasers. For most types of collateral, perfection is achieved by filing a financing statement. However, certain collateral types have specific perfection rules. In Maine, as in most states, inventory is considered a “floating lien” collateral, meaning it constantly changes. A security interest in inventory is perfected by filing a financing statement. Crucially, under Maine UCC § 9-324(a), a secured party with a perfected security interest in inventory has priority over a prior perfected security interest in the same inventory if it meets specific requirements. These requirements include having a purchase-money security interest (PMSI) in the inventory and giving new value to enable the debtor to acquire the inventory. Furthermore, the secured party must have perfected its security interest in the inventory before the debtor receives possession of it. The explanation of the scenario requires understanding that while both parties might have security interests, the PMSI holder with proper perfection has priority. The calculation of priority is not numerical but conceptual: did the second secured party meet the requirements of § 9-324? In this case, “Maine Marine Loans” has a perfected security interest in all of “Coastal Charters LLC’s” existing and after-acquired inventory. “Oceanic Finance Group” later takes a PMSI in specific fishing equipment inventory. To have priority, Oceanic Finance Group must have perfected its PMSI in that inventory before Coastal Charters LLC received possession of it, and its security agreement must have been authenticated by Coastal Charters LLC, value must have been given, and Coastal Charters LLC must have rights in the collateral for attachment to occur. Assuming these attachment requirements are met, the critical step for priority is perfection. If Oceanic Finance Group files its financing statement covering the fishing equipment inventory before Coastal Charters LLC receives possession of that specific inventory, and Maine Marine Loans’ prior perfected security interest was not specifically limited to exclude the PMSI collateral, Oceanic Finance Group will have priority in that specific inventory. The question tests the understanding of PMSI priority in inventory. The calculation is a logical application of the priority rules, not a numerical one.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts, specifically in the context of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in Maine. Perfection of a security interest in accounts is generally achieved by filing a financing statement. However, UCC § 9-309(2) provides an exception for “a security interest created by an assignment of a health-care-insurance receivable to the provider of that health care.” This exception allows for perfection by possession of the receivable, or in some cases, automatically without filing or possession. In Maine, as in most states that have adopted the revised Article 9, the assignment of health-care-insurance receivables to the healthcare provider is a key area where perfection can be achieved differently. The question presents a scenario where a Maine hospital, a healthcare provider, takes an assignment of insurance receivables. According to UCC § 9-309(2), such an assignment is automatically perfected upon attachment. Attachment occurs when value is given, the debtor has rights in the collateral, and there is an agreement that creates or provides for the security interest. Once attached, the security interest in health-care-insurance receivables assigned to the provider is perfected without the need for filing a financing statement or taking possession. Therefore, the hospital’s security interest is perfected upon attachment.

The core issue here is determining the priority of security interests when a debtor defaults on multiple secured loans. In Maine, as under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the general rule for priority among secured creditors is “first in time, first in right,” which is established by the time of filing a financing statement or the time of perfection, whichever occurs first. However, certain types of collateral and specific transactions have different perfection rules. For inventory, a security interest is perfected when it attaches and a financing statement covering inventory is filed. If the financing statement is filed before the security interest attaches, perfection occurs when the security interest attaches. In this scenario, Atlantic Bank filed its financing statement on January 1st and the security interest attached on January 15th, perfecting its interest on January 15th. Coastal Credit filed its financing statement on February 1st and its security interest attached on February 10th, perfecting on February 10th. Therefore, Atlantic Bank’s security interest, perfected on January 15th, has priority over Coastal Credit’s security interest, perfected on February 10th, because Atlantic Bank’s perfection occurred earlier in time. This priority is maintained even though Coastal Credit’s financing statement was filed earlier than Atlantic Bank’s, because perfection is the key event for priority, and it is tied to attachment for inventory collateral when a financing statement is filed prior to attachment.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Maine UCC Article 9, specifically Section 9-312(b), a security interest in a deposit account as original collateral can only be perfected by control. Control is defined in Section 9-104. For a deposit account, control is achieved when the secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the bank’s agreement to comply with the secured party’s instructions concerning the deposit account, or when the secured party becomes the assignee of the deposit account. In this scenario, although Bartholomew Bank has a security agreement and filed a financing statement, it did not obtain control over the deposit account held at Coastal Community Bank. The filing of a financing statement is generally ineffective to perfect a security interest in a deposit account. Therefore, Bartholomew Bank’s security interest is unperfected with respect to the deposit account. When a debtor files for bankruptcy, unperfected security interests are generally subject to avoidance by the bankruptcy trustee under the trustee’s strong-arm powers. The trustee, representing the interests of unsecured creditors, will have priority over Bartholomew Bank’s unperfected security interest in the deposit account.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account held by a debtor. Under Maine’s UCC Article 9, a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control 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 and the deposit account is in the name of the secured party, or when the secured party obtains control pursuant to a deposit account control agreement. In this scenario, Pine Tree Bank has a perfected security interest because it is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained by the debtor, “Lumberjack Logs LLC.” This grants Pine Tree Bank automatic control under Maine UCC § 9-104(a)(1). The security agreement with Lumberjack Logs LLC is valid and enforceable because it is in writing, signed by the debtor, reasonably describes the collateral (the deposit account), and the secured party (Pine Tree Bank) has possession or control of the collateral. Therefore, Pine Tree Bank’s security interest is perfected. Other creditors, like Coastal Credit Union, would need to obtain control over the deposit account to perfect their security interest. Without control, Coastal Credit Union’s security interest remains unperfected against Pine Tree Bank, which has priority due to its perfected security interest.

The scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. In Maine, under UCC § 9-324(b), a PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory. However, this priority is subject to certain conditions. The PMSI holder must have perfected its security interest when the debtor received possession of the inventory. Furthermore, the PMSI holder must have sent an authenticated notification to any holder of a conflicting security interest that was perfected before the debtor received possession of the inventory. This notification must state that the sender expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and describe the inventory. The notification must be sent within six months before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. In this case, Pine Tree Bank’s security interest attached to all of Aurora’s inventory. Granite State Credit Union (GSCU) later acquired a PMSI in Aurora’s new inventory. GSCU perfected its PMSI by filing before Aurora received possession of the new inventory. Crucially, GSCU also sent the required notification to Pine Tree Bank, which had a prior perfected security interest in the same collateral. Therefore, GSCU’s PMSI in the inventory has priority over Pine Tree Bank’s earlier perfected security interest. The notification requirement under § 9-324(b) is met, ensuring GSCU’s priority.

The scenario involves a buyer in the ordinary course of business purchasing inventory from a seller who is a merchant. Under Maine Revised Statutes Title 11, Chapter 9-320 (UCC § 9-320), a buyer in the ordinary course of business takes goods 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 ordinary course of chattel paper financing. In this case, the security interest was granted by the seller, “Coastal Crafts,” to “Pine Tree Bank” in all of its inventory. “Marina” is a buyer in the ordinary course of business because she purchased goods in good faith, without knowledge that the sale violated the security agreement, from a person in the business of selling goods of that kind. The fact that Marina knew about the existence of a security interest from Pine Tree Bank is irrelevant to her status as a buyer in the ordinary course of business, as long as she did not know the sale itself was unauthorized or in violation of the security agreement. Therefore, Marina takes the handcrafted kayaks free and clear of Pine Tree Bank’s security interest.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the priority of a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory against a prior perfected security interest in after-acquired inventory. Under Maine’s Uniform Commercial Code Article 9, a PMSI generally has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same collateral if the PMSI is perfected when the debtor receives possession of the collateral or within a specified period thereafter. For inventory, this perfection rule is particularly strict. To maintain PMSI priority in inventory, the secured party must perfect its interest *before* the debtor receives possession of the inventory. Furthermore, the PMSI holder must notify any prior secured party of its interest in the inventory. This notification must be sent to a secured party of record whose security interest is perfected against the collateral. The notification must be in writing, identify the goods by item or type, and be received by the secured party of record within six months before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. In this case, Pine Tree Bank has a perfected security interest in all of Birchwood Lumber’s inventory, including after-acquired inventory. Maplewood Mill then sells lumber to Birchwood Lumber on credit, taking a security interest in that lumber. Maplewood Mill’s security interest is a PMSI. For Maplewood Mill to have priority over Pine Tree Bank’s prior perfected security interest in the same inventory, Maplewood Mill must perfect its PMSI and provide the required notification to Pine Tree Bank. Maplewood Mill files its financing statement on March 15th, which perfects its security interest. However, Birchwood Lumber received possession of the lumber on March 1st. The notification to Pine Tree Bank was sent on March 10th, which is *after* Birchwood Lumber received possession of the inventory. This late notification, specifically its delivery after the debtor obtained possession of the inventory, means Maplewood Mill does not satisfy the requirements for PMSI priority in inventory under Maine UCC § 9-324(b). Therefore, Pine Tree Bank’s prior perfected security interest in after-acquired inventory has priority.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Maine’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, specifically § 9-312(b) and § 9-104, a security interest in a deposit account as original collateral 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. In this scenario, North Atlantic Bank has a perfected security interest in the deposit account because it is the bank where the account is held, thus possessing control. Coastal Creditors, by filing a financing statement, has perfected its security interest in the general intangibles of Pine Tree Enterprises, but this filing does not grant perfection in the deposit account itself, as control is the exclusive method for deposit accounts. Therefore, North Atlantic Bank’s perfected security interest in the deposit account takes priority.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account, which is governed by Maine’s Uniform Commercial Code Article 9. Under UCC § 9-104, a security interest in a deposit account as original collateral can only be perfected by control. Control is defined in UCC § 9-104(a) and generally means that the secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained, or the secured party has obtained the agreement of the bank with which the deposit account is maintained to comply with the secured party’s instructions concerning the deposit account. In this case, Pine Tree Bank has a security interest in the deposit account of Coastal Charters LLC. However, Pine Tree Bank has not taken any action to gain control over the deposit account. Instead, they have only filed a UCC-1 financing statement. A UCC-1 financing statement is generally effective for perfection in most types of collateral, but UCC § 9-312(b)(1) explicitly states that a security interest in a deposit account as original collateral can only be perfected by control. Filing is not a permissible method of perfection for deposit accounts under Article 9. Therefore, Pine Tree Bank’s security interest is unperfected, leaving them vulnerable to claims from other creditors or a trustee in bankruptcy. The filing of a UCC-1 financing statement is a valid step for perfecting security interests in many other types of collateral, such as inventory or equipment, but it is specifically excluded as a method for deposit accounts under Maine law, which follows the UCC.

The core issue here is the priority of a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory against a prior perfected security interest covering after-acquired inventory. Under Maine’s UCC Article 9, a PMSI in goods 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 grace period. For inventory, Maine UCC § 9-324(b) (mirroring UCC § 9-324(b)) requires specific steps for a PMSI holder to obtain priority over a prior perfected security interest in that inventory. These steps include: (1) the PMSI must be perfected when the debtor receives possession of the inventory; and (2) the PMSI holder must give an authenticated notification to any secured party whose security interest is perfected by filing covering the inventory. This notification must state that the PMSI holder expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and describe the inventory. Crucially, this notification must be sent within six months before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. In this scenario, Northern Bank’s security interest was perfected first and covers all of Pinecone Lumber’s inventory, including after-acquired inventory. When Pinecone Lumber acquires new inventory from Eastern Sawmill, Eastern Sawmill has a PMSI in that specific inventory. For Eastern Sawmill’s PMSI to have priority over Northern Bank’s earlier perfected security interest in the same inventory, Eastern Sawmill must have complied with the notification requirements of Maine UCC § 9-324(b). The facts state that Eastern Sawmill perfected its PMSI but do not mention any notification being sent to Northern Bank. Without this notification, Eastern Sawmill’s PMSI, despite being perfected, does not gain superpriority over Northern Bank’s prior perfected security interest in the after-acquired inventory. Therefore, Northern Bank retains priority.

The core issue here is the priority of security interests when a debtor defaults and collateral is involved. In Maine, as under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, a perfected security interest generally has priority over an unperfected one. Furthermore, when multiple security interests are perfected, priority is typically determined by the order of filing or perfection. Here, Aurora Bank perfected its security interest in the specialized milling equipment by filing a financing statement on March 15, 2023. This establishes Aurora Bank’s priority as of that date. Pine Ridge Financial, on the other hand, failed to perfect its security interest in the same equipment. While Pine Ridge Financial may have a valid security agreement with the debtor, its lack of perfection means its unperfected security interest is subordinate to Aurora Bank’s perfected interest. Therefore, upon default and the need to enforce the security interest, Aurora Bank’s claim to the milling equipment would take precedence. The existence of a purchase-money security interest (PMSI) for Pine Ridge Financial is irrelevant to priority against a prior perfected secured party if Pine Ridge failed to take the necessary steps to perfect its PMSI, such as filing a financing statement within the applicable grace period. The explanation focuses on the general rules of priority under Article 9, specifically concerning perfection. Aurora Bank’s timely filing made its interest perfected, while Pine Ridge Financial’s failure to file left its interest unperfected, thus yielding priority to Aurora Bank.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts and the impact of a subsequent filing by a competing secured party. Under Maine’s Uniform Commercial Code Article 9, a security interest in accounts is generally perfected by filing a financing statement. However, the concept of “control” is also relevant for certain types of collateral, but not typically for general accounts as defined in UCC § 9-102(a)(2). The initial secured party, Coastal Bank, filed a financing statement covering all of Ms. Gable’s accounts on January 15th. This filing establishes their priority as of that date. The second secured party, Pine Tree Lending, filed their financing statement on February 20th. According to UCC § 9-322(a)(1), when two or more security interests are perfected by filing, the first to file or perfect has priority. Since Coastal Bank filed first, their security interest in Ms. Gable’s accounts is superior to Pine Tree Lending’s security interest. The fact that Pine Tree Lending later obtained a “control agreement” over those accounts is irrelevant for perfection of accounts, as control is not the method of perfection for this type of collateral under Article 9. Therefore, Coastal Bank retains priority.

The core issue here is determining the priority of security interests when a debtor operates in multiple states and collateral is moved. Under Maine’s UCC Article 9, specifically concerning the perfection of security interests in goods that are covered by a certificate of title, perfection is generally governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the certificate of title is issued. However, if the goods are removed to another jurisdiction and a certificate of title is issued in that new jurisdiction showing a lien, or if the goods are covered by a certificate of title issued in another jurisdiction, the perfection rules of that other jurisdiction apply. In this scenario, the initial perfection in Maine was by filing a financing statement, which is the standard method for most collateral types not covered by a certificate of title. However, the scenario specifies that the collateral is a “mobile home.” Mobile homes are typically covered by certificates of title, and Maine law, like many states, treats such titled goods differently for perfection purposes. Maine UCC § 9-303(b) and § 9-311(a) indicate that perfection of a security interest in goods covered by a certificate of title must be by notation on the certificate of title. Filing a financing statement is generally ineffective for such collateral. When the mobile home is moved to New Hampshire and a New Hampshire certificate of title is issued, New Hampshire law now governs perfection. New Hampshire UCC § 9-303(b) and § 9-311(a) similarly require notation on the certificate of title for perfection in titled goods. Since the security interest was initially perfected by filing in Maine, which is an improper method for titled goods, and then no proper notation was made on the New Hampshire certificate of title, the security interest is unperfected in New Hampshire. Therefore, when the New Hampshire bank perfects its security interest by properly noting it on the New Hampshire certificate of title, it has priority over the unperfected security interest of the Maine lender. The Maine lender’s security interest is considered unperfected from the moment the mobile home became subject to New Hampshire’s certificate of title law, unless they took steps to perfect in New Hampshire. The question implies they did not, and the New Hampshire bank did. The correct answer is that the New Hampshire bank’s security interest has priority.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts that are part of a sale of a business. Under Maine’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, specifically Section 9-109(a)(3), a security interest is created in a “sale of accounts.” However, the critical distinction for perfection in this scenario lies in whether the accounts are considered “payment intangibles” or “general intangibles” for purposes of filing. Maine UCC Section 9-102(a)(61) defines payment intangible as a general intangible under which the account debtor’s principal obligation is a monetary obligation. Maine UCC Section 9-102(a)(42) defines accounts as a right to payment for goods sold or leased or services rendered. When a business sells its accounts, the UCC treats this as the creation of a security interest in the accounts themselves. Perfection of a security interest in accounts, as defined in Maine UCC Section 9-102(a)(2), is generally achieved by filing a financing statement. While certain intangible assets might be perfected by possession or control, accounts, by their nature, are typically perfected through filing. The filing must occur in the jurisdiction where the debtor is located, which, for a Maine business, would be Maine. A financing statement covering “all accounts” would be sufficient to perfect the security interest in the accounts sold as part of the business assets. Therefore, filing a financing statement in Maine is the appropriate method to perfect the security interest in the accounts.

This question assesses the understanding of the priority rules for security interests in fixtures under Maine’s Uniform Commercial Code, specifically focusing on the interplay between a purchase-money security interest (PMSI) in a fixture and a prior perfected security interest in the real property. Under Maine UCC § 9-334(d), a perfected security interest in a fixture has priority over a conflicting interest of an owner of the real property, except as provided in subsections (e) and (f). Subsection (e) states that a perfected PMSI in a fixture has priority over a conflicting interest of an owner of the real property if the security interest is perfected before the goods become fixtures or within twenty days thereafter. However, this priority does not extend to a “readily removable” component of a manufactured home. In this scenario, the industrial milling machine is not described as a readily removable component. The prior perfected security interest in the real property, held by Coastal Bank, would generally be subordinate to a PMSI in the milling machine if the PMSI is perfected timely. The key here is that the PMSI holder, Pine Point Financial, perfected its interest within the statutory twenty-day grace period after the machine became a fixture. Therefore, Pine Point Financial’s PMSI has priority over Coastal Bank’s earlier perfected security interest in the real property with respect to the milling machine. The explanation of priority rules for fixtures is critical, as it deviates from the general “first to file or perfect” rule of Article 9. The rationale is to protect those who finance the acquisition of goods that become fixtures, allowing them to retain priority if they act promptly. The twenty-day window is a specific statutory allowance in Maine (and many other states) to facilitate such financing.

The scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. Under Maine’s UCC Article 9, for a PMSI in inventory to have priority over a prior perfected security interest in the same collateral, the secured party must satisfy specific notification requirements. Specifically, the PMSI holder must give notice to any secured party who has filed a financing statement covering the inventory and any secured party who is known to have a security interest in that inventory. This notice must be sent within a specified timeframe before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. The notice must state that the sender has or expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and must describe the inventory. In this case, Coastal Bank has a prior perfected security interest in all of Aurora’s inventory. New England Financial (NEF) acquires a PMSI in new inventory. To maintain priority over Coastal Bank’s prior perfected security interest, NEF must provide the required notification to Coastal Bank. Without this notification, NEF’s PMSI, while perfected, would be subordinate to Coastal Bank’s prior perfected security interest in the same inventory. Therefore, the key to NEF’s priority is the proper notification to Coastal Bank, as mandated by Maine UCC § 9-324(b). The question tests the understanding of the notification requirement for PMSI in inventory priority.

The scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. A PMSI is a security interest taken by a seller of collateral to secure the payment of all or part of its price. For a PMSI in inventory to have priority over other security interests, the secured party must satisfy specific requirements under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in Maine. These requirements include: (1) the PMSI must be perfected by filing a financing statement; (2) the PMSI holder must give notification in accordance with Maine UCC § 9-324(b) to any other secured party who has filed a financing statement covering the inventory or its proceeds, and to any other secured party whose security interest is known to the PMSI holder or who has filed a financing statement covering the goods before the filing of the PMSI holder’s financing statement; and (3) the notification must be sent within a specific timeframe before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. Maine UCC § 9-324(b) requires that the notification be sent within five years before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. In this case, the notification was sent on January 15, 2023, and the debtor received possession of the inventory on February 1, 2023. This falls within the five-year window. Furthermore, the financing statement was filed on January 20, 2023, which is before the debtor received possession of the inventory. The notification sent to “First National Bank” is sufficient because First National Bank had previously filed a financing statement covering the debtor’s inventory. Therefore, “Coastal Equipment Finance” has priority over “First National Bank” regarding the inventory.