Monday, April 28, 2008

So, Why the Disconnect?

To date, five states — Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Vermont — have enacted Revised UCC Article 1 without enacting Revised Article 7, while two states — Maryland and Mississippi — have enacted Revised Article 7 without enacting Revised Article 1. (While Tennessee technically falls into this latter group, I am excluding it because both houses of the Tennessee legislature recently passed a Revised Article 1 bill and I have no reason to believe that Governor Phil Bredesen will not sign it in short order.) Why?

Louisiana's failure to enact Revised Article 7 might be explained by some eccentricity of the Louisiana Civil Code's treatment of documents of title. But, why have Florida, Kentucky, South Dakota, and Vermont revised their versions of Article 1 while retaining (conforming amendments excepted) their pre-2003 versions of Article 7; and, why have Maryland and Mississippi revised their versions of Article 7 while retaining (conforming amendments again excepted) their pre-2001 versions of Article 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

2 comments:

Joe S. said...

Not to be too snarky, but UCC 7 doesn't do much. Its main positive accomplishment is to eliminate outdated gender references in the statute.

Its main accomplishment is to introduce electronic documents of title. I wouldn't call this a positive. I could go on an extended rant of my own, but Ken Kettering has already published about half the points I would have made: more than enough evidence to hang the horse thief. Kenneth C. Kettering, Securitization and Its Discontents, 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 1553, 1702-10 (2008).

Keith A. Rowley said...

Thanks, Joe. Ken's reprint arrived in the mail earlier this week. I look forward to seeing what he has to say about, among other things, Revised Article 7.