Opinion ID: 1178333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Retention of the Collateral.

Text: With reference to this issue plaintiff contends: (1) that defendant Gozard was a surety, not a secured party, and therefore, the defendant could not have a secured interest in the collateral; and (2) even if defendant Gozard was an assignee of a secured party, the assignment would be against public policy because it is in violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. We disagree. The Uniform Commercial Code specifically recognizes the rights of an assignee. Sections 55-9-318 and 55-9-405(2), (3), N.M.S.A. 1978. Under these statutes, the assignee stands in the shoes of his assignor, subject to all equities and defenses which could have been raised by the debtor against the assignor, Farmers Acceptance Corporation v. DeLozier, 178 Colo. 291, 496 P.2d 1016 (1972). Here, the bank created a security interest by filing a financing statement covering the restaurant's operating equipment as collateral. By taking such an assignment of the perfected security interest, defendant Gozard stepped into the shoes of the bank and was entitled to the rights and privileges enjoyed by the bank, limited only by the defenses that could be asserted against the bank. Such an assignment is not a mere subrogation right of a surety. Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank Intern. Corp., 540 F.2d 548 (2d Cir.1976).