CO Code § 4-9-201 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 4 - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 9 - Secured Transactions|Part 2 - Effectiveness of Security Agreement; Attachment of Security Interest; Rights of Parties to Security Agreement|§ 4-9-201. General Effectiveness of Security Agreement

  Except as otherwise provided by this title, a security agreement is effective according to its terms between the parties, against purchasers of the collateral, and against creditors.    A transaction subject to this article 9 is subject to any applicable rule of law that establishes a different rule for consumers and any other statute or rule of this state that regulates the rates, charges, agreements, and practices for loans, credit sales, or other extensions of credit and any consumer protection statute or rule of this state, including, but not limited to, the “Uniform Consumer Credit Code”, articles 1 to 9 of title 5; the “Colorado Consumer Protection Act”, article 1 of title 6; “assignment of wages”, article 9 of title 8; “property and earnings exempt”, article 54 of title 13; and the “Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act”, article 16 of title 5.    In case of conflict between this article and a rule of law, statute, or regulation described in subsection (b) of this section, the rule of law, statute, or regulation controls. Failure to comply with a statute or regulation described in subsection (b) of this section has only the effect the statute or regulation specifies.    This article does not:   Validate any rate, charge, agreement, or practice that violates a rule of law, statute, or regulation described in subsection (b) of this section; or    Extend the application of the rule of law, statute, or regulation to a transaction not otherwise subject to it.        History. Source: L. 2001: Entire article R&RE, p. 1334, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2002: (b) and (c) amended, p. 937, § 2, effective August 7. L. 2017: (b) amended, (HB 17-1238), ch. 260, p. 1169, § 5, effective August 9.    Cross references:   For offenses relating to this title, see part 5 of article 5 of title 18.   Official Comments   Copyright by the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Reproduced with the permission of the Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform Commercial Code. All rights reserved. —   Editor's note:   The Official Comments to the Uniform Commercial Code are available only in the printed book form of Colorado Revised Statutes. As noted above, the Official Comments are subject to copyright by the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. At this time, Colorado has a license to reprint the Official Comments in the printed book form.   Editor's note:    The numbering and sequencing of C.R.S. subsections do not necessarily correspond with the numbering and sequencing of subsections in the uniform act.    This article was numbered as article 9 of chapter 155, C.R.S. 1963. The provisions of this article were repealed and reenacted in 2001, resulting in the addition, relocation, and elimination of sections as well as subject matter. For amendments to this article prior to 2001, consult the Colorado statutory research explanatory note and the table itemizing the replacement volumes and supplements to the original volume of C.R.S. 1973 beginning on page vii in the front of this volume. Former C.R.S. section numbers are shown in editor's notes following those sections that were relocated. For a detailed comparison of this article, see the comparative tables located in the back of the index.     Law reviews:   For article, “Lien and Security Interest Provision of AAPL Model Operating Agreement”, see 13 Colo. Law. 1216 ; for a discussion of a Tenth Circuit decision dealing with secured transactions, see 66 Den. U. L. Rev. 795 (1989); for article, “Mastering The Maze of Secured Transactions - Part 1”, see 21 Colo. Law. 2329 (1992); for article, “Remastering the Maze: Revisions to UCC Article 9 Filing Provisions”, see 25 Colo. Law. 3 (June 1996); for article, “Introducing Revised Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code”, see 30 Colo. Law. 9 (Sept. 2001); for article, “Perfecting Security Interests in Intellectual Property”, see 32 Colo. Law. 85 (April 2003).   Editor's note:    The provisions of this section are similar to former §§ 4-9-201 and 4-9-203 (4) as they existed prior to 2001.    Colorado legislative change: Colorado did not adopt the phrase “rule of law” in subsections (b) and (c) in 2001 when this article was repealed and reenacted. The phrase was subsequently adopted in 2002.     OFFICIAL COMMENT   1. Source. Former Sections 9-201, 9-203(4).   2. Effectiveness of Security Agreement. Subsection (a) provides that a security agreement is generally effective. With certain exceptions, a security agreement is effective between the debtor and secured party and is likewise effective against third parties. Note that “security agreement” is used here (and elsewhere in this Article) as it is defined in Section 9-102: “an agreement that creates or provides for a security interest.” It follows that subsection (a) does not provide that every term or provision contained in a record that contains a security agreement or that is so labeled is effective. Properly read, former Section 9-201 was to the same effect. Exceptions to the general rule of subsection (a) arise where there is an overriding provision in this Article or any other Article of the UCC. For example, Section 9-317 subordinates unperfected security interests to lien creditors and certain buyers, and several provisions in Part 3 subordinate some security interests to other security interests and interests of purchasers.   3. Law, Statutes, and Regulations Applicable to Certain Transactions. Subsection (b) makes clear that certain transactions, although subject to this Article, also are subject to other applicable laws relating to consumers or specified in that subsection. Subsection (c) provides that the other law is controlling in the event of a conflict, and that a violation of other law does notipso facto constitute a violation of this Article. Subsection (d) provides that this Article does not validate violations under or extend the application of the other applicable laws.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “The Revolution in Consumer Credit Legislation”, see 45 Den. L.J. 679 (1968).   Annotator's note. Since § 4-9-201 is similar to §§ 4-9-201 and 4-9-203 as they existed prior to the 2001 repeal and reenactment of this article, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.   Security agreement is effective between parties except as specifically provided. It is the policy of the UCC that a security agreement shall be effective between the parties and against other parties except as specifically provided otherwise in the code. Guy Martin Buick, Inc. v. Colo. Springs Nat'l Bank, 32 Colo. App. 235, 511 P.2d 912 (1973), aff'd, 184 Colo. 166 , 519 P.2d 354 (1974).   Judicial lien takes priority. A perfected security interest securing an obligation that was undertaken by debtor before creation of a judicial lien took priority over the lien even if such obligation did not become due until after the lien's creation. Alling v. Am. Tool and Grinding Co., Inc., 648 F. Supp. 1344 (D. Colo. 1986 ).   Extension of security agreement to include additional amounts need not adhere to any particular form where the original agreement or indenture is valid and does not prescribe any particular form for extension agreements. The extension agreement operates as a modification of the original note amount. Vance v. Casebolt, 841 P.2d 394 (Colo. App. 1992).   There is an inconsistency between this section and former § 4-9-306 on subject of proceeds. Fort Collins Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Carroll Dairy, 37 Colo. App. 536, 553 P.2d 95 (1976) (decided prior to the 1977 amendment of this section and § 4-9-306 ).   Applied in Young v. Golden State Bank, 632 P.2d 1053 (Colo. App. 1981); Layne v. Fort Carson Nat'l Bank, 655 P.2d 856 (Colo. App. 1982); ITT Diversified Credit Corp. v. Couch, 669 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1983); Bank of Am. v. Denver Hotel Ass'n, 830 P.2d 1138 (Colo. App. 1992).