as follows: The owner of Blackacre borrows $10,000 from his neighbor, and secures his note by a mortgage on Blackacre. This article is not applicable to the creation of the real estate mortgage. Nor is it applicable to a sale of the note by the mortgagee, even though the mortgage continues to secure the note. However, when the mortgagee pledges the note to secure his own obligation to X, this article applies to the security interest thus created, which is a security interest in an instrument even though the instrument is secured by a real estate mortgage. (Emphasis added.) The trustee appears to be drawing an analogy between the “instrument” described in Comment 4 and the assigned real estate contract at issue. See First State Bank v. Clark, 91 N.M. 117, 119, 570 P.2d 1144, 1146 (1977) (<HOLDING>). We are not persuaded by this argument. In the
holding official comments to the code are persuasive but not controlling authority recognizing that although federal precedent was not binding it was persuasive authority recognizing federal authority on standing to be persuasive recognizing that unpublished decisions issued after january 1 1996 are not controlling precedent but may be considered persuasive authority holding the florida appellate courts are not bound by federal precedent which is persuasive not binding authority