reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
DC Code § 28:9-202 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 9 - Secured Transactions|Part II - Effectiveness of Security Agreement; Attachment of Security Interest; Rights of Parties to Security Agreement|Subpart 1 - Effectiveness and Attachment|§ 28:9-202. Title to collateral immaterial

Except as otherwise provided with respect to consignments or sales of accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles, or promissory notes, the provisions of this article with regard to rights and obligations apply whether title to collateral is in the secured party or the debtor.  (Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 101, 47 DCR 7576.)  Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Source. Former Section 9-202. 2. Title Immaterial. The rights and duties of parties to a secured transaction and affected third parties are provided in this Article without reference to the location of “title” to the collateral. For example, the characteristics of a security interest that secures the purchase price of goods are the same whether the secured party appears to have retained title or the debtor appears to have obtained title and then conveyed title or a lien to the secured party. 3. When Title Matters. a. Under This Article. This section explicitly acknowledges two circumstances in which the effect of certain Article 9 provisions turns on ownership (title). First, in some respects sales of accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles, and promissory notes receive special treatment. See, e.g., Sections 9-207(a), 9-210(b), 9-615(e). Buyers of receivables under former Article 9 were treated specially, as well. See, e.g., former Section 9-502(2). Second, the remedies of a consignor under a true consignment and, for the most part, the remedies of a buyer of accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles, or promissory notes are determined by other law and not by Part 6. See Section 9-601(g). b. Under Other Law. This Article does not determine which line of interpretation (e.g., title theory or lien theory, retained title or conveyed title) should be followed in cases in which the applicability of another rule of law depends upon who has title. If, for example, a revenue law imposes a tax on the “legal” owner of goods or if a corporation law makes a vote of the stockholders prerequisite to a corporation “giving” a security interest but not if it acquires property “subject” to a security interest, this Article does not attempt to define whether the secured party is a “legal” owner or whether the transaction “gives” a security interest for the purpose of such laws. Other rules of law or the agreement of the parties determines the location and source of title for those purposes.
DC Code § 28:9-209 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 9 - Secured Transactions|Part II - Effectiveness of Security Agreement; Attachment of Security Interest; Rights of Parties to Security Agreement|Subpart 2 - Rights and Duties|§ 28:9-209. Duties of secured party if account debtor has been notified of assignment

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), this section applies if: (1) There is no outstanding secured obligation; and (2) The secured party is not committed to make advances, incur obligations, or otherwise give value. (b) Within 10 days after receiving an authenticated demand by the debtor, a secured party shall send to an account debtor that has received notification of an assignment to the secured party as assignee under § 28:9-406(a) an authenticated record that releases the account debtor from any further obligation to the secured party. (c) This section does not apply to an assignment constituting the sale of an account, chattel paper, or payment intangible.  (Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 101, 47 DCR 7576.)  Section References This section is referenced in § 28:9-625. Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Source. New. 2. Scope and Purpose. Like Sections 9-208 and 9-513, which require a secured party to relinquish control of collateral and to file or provide a termination statement for a financing statement, this section requires a secured party to free up collateral when there no longer is any outstanding secured obligation or any commitment to give value in the future. This section addresses the case in which account debtors have been notified to pay a secured party to whom the receivables have been assigned. It requires the secured party (assignee) to inform the account debtors that they no longer are obligated to make payment to the secured party. See subsection (b). It does not apply to account debtors whose obligations on an account, chattel paper, or payment intangible have been sold. See subsection (c).
DC Code § 28:9-302 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 9 - Secured Transactions|Part III - Perfection and Priority|Subpart 1 - Law Governing Perfection and Priority|§ 28:9-302. Law governing perfection and priority of agricultural liens

While farm products are located in a jurisdiction, the local law of that jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of an agricultural lien on the farm products.  (Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 101, 47 DCR 7576.)  Section References This section is referenced in § 28:11-106. Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Source. New. 2. Agricultural Liens. This section provides choice-of-law rules for agricultural liens on farm products. Perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and priority all are governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the farm products are located. Other choice-of-law rules, including Section 1-105, determine which jurisdiction’s law governs other matters, such as the secured party’s rights on default. See Section 9-301, Comment 2. Inasmuch as no agricultural lien on proceeds arises under this Article, this section does not expressly apply to proceeds of agricultural liens. However, if another statute creates an agricultural lien on proceeds, it may be appropriate for courts to apply the choice-of-law rule in this section to determine priority in the proceeds.
DC Code § 28:9-321 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 9 - Secured Transactions|Part III - Perfection and Priority|Subpart 3 - Priority|§ 28:9-321. Licensee of general intangible and lessee of goods in ordinary course of business

(a) In this section, “licensee in ordinary course of business” means a person that becomes a licensee of a general intangible in good faith, without knowledge that the license violates the rights of another person in the general intangible, and in the ordinary course from a person in the business of licensing general intangibles of that kind. A person becomes a licensee in the ordinary course if the license to the person comports with the usual or customary practices in the kind of business in which the licensor is engaged or with the licensor’s own usual or customary practices. (b) A licensee in ordinary course of business takes its rights under a nonexclusive license free of a security interest in the general intangible created by the licensor, even if the security interest is perfected and the licensee knows of its existence. (c) A lessee in ordinary course of business takes its leasehold interest free of a security interest in the goods created by the lessor, even if the security interest is perfected and the lessee knows of its existence.  (Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 101, 47 DCR 7576.)  Section References This section is referenced in § 28:2A-307, § 28:7-209, § 28:7-503, and § 28:9-317. Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Source. Derived from Sections 2A-103(1)(o), 2A-307(3). 2. Licensee in Ordinary Course. Like the analogous rules in Section 9-320(a) with respect to buyers in ordinary course and subsection (c) with respect to lessees in ordinary course, the new rule in subsection (b) reflects the expectations of the parties and the marketplace: a licensee under a nonexclusive license takes subject to a security interest unless the secured party authorizes the license free of the security interest or other, controlling law such as that of this section (protecting ordinary-course licensees) dictates a contrary result. See Sections 9-201, 9-315. The definition of “licensee in ordinary course of business“ in subsection (a) is modeled upon that of ‘’buyer in ordinary course of business.” 3. Lessee in Ordinary Course. Subsection (c) contains the rule formerly found in Section 2A-307(3). The rule works in the same way as that of Section 9-320(a).
DC Code § 28:9-333 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 9 - Secured Transactions|Part III - Perfection and Priority|Subpart 3 - Priority|§ 28:9-333. Priority of certain liens arising by operation of law

(a) In this section, “possessory lien” means an interest, other than a security interest or an agricultural lien: (1) Which secures payment or performance of an obligation for services or materials furnished with respect to goods by a person in the ordinary course of the person’s business; (2) Which is created by statute or rule of law in favor of the person; and (3) Whose effectiveness depends on the person’s possession of the goods. (b) A possessory lien on goods has priority over a security interest in the goods unless the lien is created by a statute that expressly provides otherwise.  (Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 101, 47 DCR 7576.)  Section References This section is referenced in § 28:9-109. Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Source. Former Section 9-310. 2. “Possessory Liens.” This section governs the relative priority of security interests arising under this Article and “possessory liens,” i.e., common-law and statutory liens whose effectiveness depends on the lienor’s possession of goods with respect to which the lienor provided services or furnished materials in the ordinary course of its business. As under former Section 9-310, the possessory lien has priority over a security interest unless the possessory lien is created by a statute that expressly provides otherwise. If the statute creating the possessory lien is silent as to its priority relative to a security interest, this section provides a rule of interpretation that the possessory lien takes priority, even if the statute has been construed judicially to make the possessory lien subordinate.
DC Code § 28:9-337 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 9 - Secured Transactions|Part III - Perfection and Priority|Subpart 3 - Priority|§ 28:9-337. Priority of security interests in goods covered by certificate of title

If, while a security interest in goods is perfected by any method under the law of another jurisdiction, the District issues a certificate of title that does not show that the goods are subject to the security interest or contain a statement that they may be subject to security interests not shown on the certificate: (1) A buyer of the goods, other than a person in the business of selling goods of that kind, takes free of the security interest if the buyer gives value and receives delivery of the goods after issuance of the certificate and without knowledge of the security interest; and (2) The security interest is subordinate to a conflicting security interest in the goods that attaches, and is perfected under § 28:9-311(b), after issuance of the certificate and without the conflicting secured party’s knowledge of the security interest.  (Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 101, 47 DCR 7576.)  Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Source. Derived from former Section 9-103(2)(d). 2. Protection for Buyers and Secured Parties. This section affords protection to certain good-faith purchasers for value who are likely to have relied on a “clean” certificate of title, i.e., one that neither shows that the goods are subject to a particular security interest nor contains a statement that they may be subject to security interests not shown on the certificate. Under this section, a buyer can take free of, and the holder of a conflicting security interest can acquire priority over, a security interest that is perfected by any method under the law of another jurisdiction. The fact that the security interest has been reperfected by possession under Section 9-313 does not of itself disqualify the holder of a conflicting security interest from protection under paragraph (2).
DC Code § 28:9-338 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 9 - Secured Transactions|Part III - Perfection and Priority|Subpart 3 - Priority|§ 28:9-338. Priority of security interest or agricultural lien perfected by filed financing statement providing certain incorrect information

If a security interest or agricultural lien is perfected by a filed financing statement providing information described in § 28:9-516(b)(5) which is incorrect at the time the financing statement is filed: (1) The security interest or agricultural lien is subordinate to a conflicting perfected security interest in the collateral to the extent that the holder of the conflicting security interest gives value in reasonable reliance upon the incorrect information; and (2) A purchaser, other than a secured party, of the collateral takes free of the security interest or agricultural lien to the extent that, in reasonable reliance upon the incorrect information, the purchaser gives value and, in the case of tangible chattel paper, tangible documents, goods, instruments, or a security certificate, receives delivery of the collateral.  (Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 101, 47 DCR 7576; Apr. 27, 2013, D.C. Law 19-299, § 11(m), 60 DCR 2634.)  Section References This section is referenced in § 28:9-520. Effect of Amendments The 2013 amendment by D.C. Law 19-299 substituted “tangible chattel paper, tangible documents” for “chattel paper, documents” in (2). Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Source. New. 2. Effect of Incorrect Information in Financing Statement. Section 9-520(a) requires the filing office to reject financing statements that do not contain information concerning the debtor as specified in Section 9-516(b)(5). An error in this information does not render the financing statement ineffective. On rare occasions, a subsequent purchaser of the collateral (i.e., a buyer or secured party) may rely on the misinformation to its detriment. This section subordinates a security interest or agricultural lien perfected by an effective, but flawed, financing statement to the rights of a buyer or holder of a perfected security interest to the extent that, in reasonable reliance on the incorrect information, the purchaser gives value and, in the case of tangible collateral, receives delivery of the collateral. A purchaser who has not made itself aware of the information in the filing office with respect to the debtor cannot act in “reasonable reliance” upon incorrect information. 3. Relationship to Section 9-507. This section applies to financing statements that contain information that is incorrect at the time of filing and imposes a small risk of subordination on the filer. In contrast, Section 9-507 deals with financing statements containing information that is correct at the time of filing but which becomes incorrect later. Except as provided in Section 9-507 with respect to changes in the debtor’s name, an otherwise effective financing statement does not become ineffective if the information contained in it becomes inaccurate.
DC Code § 28:9-339 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 9 - Secured Transactions|Part III - Perfection and Priority|Subpart 3 - Priority|§ 28:9-339. Priority subject to subordination

This article does not preclude subordination by agreement by a person entitled to priority.  (Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 101, 47 DCR 7576.)  Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Source. Former Section 9-316. 2. Subordination by Agreement. The preceding sections deal elaborately with questions of priority. This section makes it entirely clear that a person entitled to priority may effectively agree to subordinate its claim. Only the person entitled to priority may make such an agreement: a person’s rights cannot be adversely affected by an agreement to which the person is not a party.
DC Code § 28:9-340 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 9 - Secured Transactions|Part III - Perfection and Priority|Subpart 4 - Rights of Bank|§ 28:9-340. Effectiveness of right of recoupment or set-off against deposit account

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a bank with which a deposit account is maintained may exercise any right of recoupment or set-off against a secured party that holds a security interest in the deposit account. (b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), the application of this article to a security interest in a deposit account does not affect a right of recoupment or set-off of the secured party as to a deposit account maintained with the secured party. (c) The exercise by a bank of a set-off against a deposit account is ineffective against a secured party that holds a security interest in the deposit account which is perfected by control under § 28:9-104(a)(3), if the set-off is based on a claim against the debtor.  (Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 101, 47 DCR 7576.)  Section References This section is referenced in § 28:9-109 and § 28:9-341. Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Source. New; subsection (b) is based on a nonuniform Illinois amendment. 2. Set-off vs. Security Interest. This section resolves the conflict between a security interest in a deposit account and the bank’s rights of recoupment and set-off. Subsection (a) states the general rule and provides that the bank may effectively exercise rights of recoupment and set-off against the secured party. Subsection (c) contains an exception: if the secured party has control under Section 9-104(a)(3) (i.e., if it has become the bank’s customer), then any set-off exercised by the bank against a debt owed by the debtor (as opposed to a debt owed to the bank by the secured party) is ineffective. The bank may, however, exercise its recoupment rights effectively. This result is consistent with the priority rule in Section 9-327(4), under which the security interest of a bank in a deposit account is subordinate to that of a secured party who has control under Section 9-104(a)(3). This section deals with rights of set-off and recoupment that a bank may have under other law. It does not create a right of set-off or recoupment, nor is it intended to override any limitations or restrictions that other law imposes on the exercise of those rights. 3. Preservation of Set-Off Right. Subsection (b) makes clear that a bank may hold both a right of set-off against, and an Article 9 security interest in, the same deposit account. By holding a security interest in a deposit account, a bank does not impair any right of set-off it would otherwise enjoy. This subsection does not pertain to accounts evidenced by an instrument (e.g., certain certificates of deposit), which are excluded from the definition of “deposit accounts.”
DC Code § 28:9-342 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 9 - Secured Transactions|Part III - Perfection and Priority|Subpart 4 - Rights of Bank|§ 28:9-342. Bank’s right to refuse to enter into or disclose existence of control agreement

This article does not require a bank to enter into an agreement of the kind described in § 28:9-104(a)(2), even if its customer so requests or directs. A bank that has entered into such an agreement is not required to confirm the existence of the agreement to another person unless requested to do so by its customer.  (Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 101, 47 DCR 7576.)  Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Source. New; derived from Section 8-106(g). 2. Protection for Bank. This section protects banks from the need to enter into agreements against their will and from the need to respond to inquiries from persons other than their customers.
DC Code § 28:9-504 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 9 - Secured Transactions|Part V - Filing|Subpart 1 - Filing Office; Contents and Effectiveness of Financing Statement|§ 28:9-504. Indication of collateral

A financing statement sufficiently indicates the collateral that it covers if the financing statement provides: (1) A description of the collateral pursuant to § 28:9-108; or (2) An indication that the financing statement covers all assets or all personal property.  (Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 101, 47 DCR 7576.)  Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Source. Former Section 9-402(1). 2. Indication of Collateral. To comply with Section 9-502(a), a financing statement must “indicate” the collateral it covers. A financing statement sufficiently indicates collateral claimed to be covered by the financing statement if it satisfies the purpose of conditioning perfection on the filing of a financing statement, i.e., if it provides notice that a person may have a security interest in the collateral claimed. See Section 9-502, Comment 2. In particular, an indication of collateral that would have satisfied the requirements of former Section 9-402(l) (i.e., “a statement indicating the types, or describing the items, of collateral“) suffices under Section 9-502(a). An indication may satisfy the requirements of Section 9-502(a), even if it would not have satisfied the requirements of former Section 9-402(l). This section provides two safe harbors. Under paragraph (l), a “description” of the collateral (as the term is explained in Section 9-108) suffices as an indication for purposes of the sufficiency of a financing statement. Debtors sometimes create a security interest in all, or substantially all, of their assets. To accommodate this practice, paragraph (2) expands the class of sufficient collateral references to embrace “an indication that the financing statement covers all assets or all personal property.“ If the property in question belongs to the debtor and is personal property, any searcher will know that the property is covered by the financing statement. Of course, regardless of its breadth, a financing statement has no effect with respect to property indicated but to which a security interest has not attached. Note that a broad statement of this kind (e.g., “all debtor’s personal property”) would not be a sufficient “description” for purposes of a security agreement. See Sections 9-203(b)(3)(A), 9-108. It follows that a somewhat narrower description than “all assets,” e.g., “all assets other than automobiles,” is sufficient for purposes of this section, even if it does not suffice for purposes of a security agreement.