Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A method permitted under non-UCC law for identifying the portion of proceeds that have been commingled with other funds, allowing a secured party to maintain its interest in the traceable amount.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
4
Commingled Account Identification
Threshold Capital held a perfected security interest in inventory sold by its debtor. The debtor deposited the sale proceeds into a general operating account that already contained other funds. When the debtor defaulted, Threshold Capital identified its share of the account balance by applying equitable tracing methods permitted under non-UCC law. The court treated the traced amount as identifiable proceeds subject to the security interest.
Separate Property Exchange
A secured party held an interest in equipment sold by its debtor. The debtor deposited the sale proceeds into a general operating account that already contained other funds. When the debtor defaulted, the secured party identified its share of the account balance by applying equitable tracing methods permitted under non-UCC law. The court treated the traced amount as identifiable proceeds subject to the security interest.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Uniform Acts
Restatements
Study Supplements
Roper v. Simmons543 U.S. 551 (2005)
Commingled Inheritance Proceeds
A secured party held an interest in collateral sold by its debtor. The debtor deposited the sale proceeds into a general operating account that already contained other funds. When the debtor defaulted, the secured party identified its share of the account balance by applying equitable tracing methods permitted under non-UCC law. The court treated the traced amount as identifiable proceeds subject to the security interest.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977)
Business Sale Tracing
A secured party held an interest in assets sold by its debtor. The debtor deposited the sale proceeds into a general operating account that already contained other funds. When the debtor defaulted, the secured party identified its share of the account balance by applying equitable tracing methods permitted under non-UCC law. The court treated the traced amount as identifiable proceeds subject to the security interest.
Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales545 U.S. 748 (2005)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
How does the tracing principle interact with commingled funds under UCC Article 9?+
UCC § 9-315 permits a secured party to identify proceeds by any tracing method allowed under other law when funds are commingled. The principle treats the traced amount as still subject to the security interest even after deposit into a general account.
What evidence satisfies the tracing principle for commingled proceeds?+
Bank records and account statements showing the movement of funds are typically sufficient. The secured party must demonstrate the chain from original collateral through any commingling to the current balance.
Does commingling always destroy a security interest under the tracing principle?+
No. Commingling does not destroy the interest if the secured party can identify its portion using permitted equitable tracing methods under non-UCC law. Failure to maintain records often results in loss of the interest in the commingled funds.
543 U.S. 551 (2005)Family Law
…for rape." Id. , at 593. In Ford v. Wainwright , 477 U. S. 399, 408 (1986), we held execution of the insane unconstitutional, tracing the roots of this prohibition to the common law and noting that "no State in the union permits the execution of the insane." In Enmund v. Florida , 458 U. S. 782, 792 (1982), we…