intangibles,” noting that “the Official Comment set forth in Va.Code § 8.9-106 makes clear that [the term ‘general intangibles’] was intended to cover types of personal property such as goodwill, copyrights and trademarks that are not usually represented by a particular docu ment.” Id. at 478-79. Kelly’s holding that “nonnegotiable, nontransferable” certificates of deposit are “instruments” under Va.Code § 8.9-105(l)(i) has not yet been accepted or rejected by Virginia courts. See Kelly, 159 B.R. at 477-78. However, the weight of authority supports the conclusion that a nonnegotiable certificate of deposit, even if bearing words limiting its transferability as in this case, is an “instrument” as defined under UCC Article 9. See, e.g., In re Latin Investment Corp., 156 B.R. at 109 (<HOLDING>); Kroh Operating Ltd. Partnership v. Barnett
holding that official certificates such as forms 4340 can constitute proof of the fact that the assessments were actually and properly made holding that certificates of deposit are instruments and noting that the majority of jurisdictions agree holding certificates of inspection of a breathalyzer were nontestimonial business records holding that certificates of deposit are instruments not general intangibles even if the certificate is labeled nontransferable holding that nonnegotiable certificates of deposit are instruments within the meaning of ucc article 9 even if transferability is severely restricted