Subpart 4. Rights of Bank.


  • Current through October 23, 2012
  • (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.)

    HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

    UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE COMMENT

    Source

    New; subsection (b) is based on a nonuniform Illinois amendment.

    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.

    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."

    Legislative History of Laws

    For Law 13-201, see notes following § 28:9-101.

  • Current through October 23, 2012 Back to Top
  • Except as otherwise provided in § 28:9-340(c), and unless the bank otherwise agrees in an authenticated record, a bank's rights and duties with respect to a deposit account maintained with the bank are not terminated, suspended, or modified by:

    (1) The creation, attachment, or perfection of a security interest in the deposit account;

    (2) The bank's knowledge of the security interest; or

    (3) The bank's receipt of instructions from the secured party.

    (Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 101, 47 DCR 7576.)

    HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

    UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE COMMENT

    Source

    New.

    Free Flow of Funds

    This section is designed to prevent security interests in deposit accounts from impeding the free flow of funds through the payment system. Subject to two exceptions, it leaves the bank's rights and duties with respect to the deposit account and the funds on deposit unaffected by the creation or perfection of a security interest or by the bank's knowledge of the security interest. In addition, the section permits the bank to ignore the instructions of the secured party unless it had agreed to honor them or unless other law provides to the contrary. A secured party who wishes to deprive the debtor of access to funds on deposit or to appropriate those funds for itself needs to obtain the agreement of the bank, utilize the judicial process, or comply with procedures set forth in other law. Section 4-303(a), concerning the effect of notice on a bank's right and duty to pay items, is not to the contrary. That section addresses only whether an otherwise effective notice comes too late; it does not determine whether a timely notice is otherwise effective.

    Operation of Rule

    The general rule of this section is subject to Section 9- 340(c), under which a bank's right of set-off may not be exercised against a deposit account in the secured party's name if the right is based on a claim against the debtor. This result reflects current law in many jurisdictions and does not appear to have unduly disrupted banking practices or the payments system. The more important function of this section, which is not impaired by Section 9-340, is the bank's right to follow the debtor's (customer's) instructions (e.g., by honoring checks, permitting withdrawals, etc.) until such time as the depository institution is served with judicial process or receives instructions with respect to the funds on deposit from a secured party who has control over the deposit account.

    Liability of Bank

    This Article does not determine whether a bank that pays out funds from an encumbered deposit is liable to the holder of a security interest. Although the fact that a secured party has control over the deposit account and the manner by which control was achieved may be relevant to the imposition of liability, whatever rule applies generally when a bank pays out funds in which a third party has an interest would determine liability to a secured party. Often, this rule is found in a non-UCC adverse claim statute.

    Certificates of Deposit

    This section does not address the obligations of banks that issue instruments evidencing deposits (e.g., certain certificates of deposit).

    Legislative History of Laws

    For Law 13-201, see notes following § 28:9-101.

  • Current through October 23, 2012 Back to Top
  • 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.)

    HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

    UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE COMMENT

    Source

    New; derived from Section 8-106(g).

    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.

    Legislative History of Laws

    For Law 13-201, see notes following § 28:9-101.