Opinion ID: 1133174
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is the transfer excluded from article nine coverage by the provisions of section 679.104(9) or section 679.104(11), Florida Statutes (1973)?

Text: We do not agree with the Grand Prairie court that the seller of the certificate, the Bank here, is necessarily prevented from asserting any set-off against the assignee, where the assignee has already perfected the non-negotiable instrument by taking possession under section 679.304(1). The Bank asserts its claim not as a secured party, but as a debtor under the certificate whose claim to the funds represented thereby arises solely by virtue of its asserted right of set-off. [2] We do not interpret the set-off exclusion from article 9 coverage under section 679.104(9) to prevent the bank from asserting any rights to set-off it may have against a secured party with a perfected security interest under article 9. To the contrary, we construe this section to mean that the claimant of a right to set-off need not comply with article 9 security and filing requirements in order to assert whatever set-off rights he may aptly demonstrate. The section means simply that a right of set-off may exist in a creditor who does not have a security interest. It does not effectuate the exclusion of this transfer from article 9 coverage. Associates Discount Corp. v. Fidelity Union Trust Co., 111 N.J. Super. 353, 263 A.2d 330 (Law Div. 1970). Because we do not construe deposit account to include an account evidenced by a certificate of deposit we are equally confident that the transfer in question is not excluded from coverage under article 9 by the section 679.104(11) provision excepting the chapter's application To a transfer ... of any deposit, savings, passbook, or like account. See, U.C.C. § 9-105(1)(e) (1972 revision).