the trial justice’s conclusion that the bank failed to perfect its security interest when it failed to mail a notice of default to Read & Lundy before it applied the CD against the balance due on the CSI loan. Instead, § 6A-9-305 plainly states that "[a] security interest in * * * instruments * * * may be perfected by the secured party’s taking possession of the collateral.” For this reason, the bank perfected its security interest when it took possession of the CD. Thus, its failure to send a notice of default was irrelevant to its status as a prior perfected secured creditor because obtaining that status did not hinge on issuing a default notice. 9 . We recognize that the Third Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in a 1976 case. In re Copeland, 531 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). Although we consider the Roberts opinion to
holding that secured partys act of liquidating stocks and using money to pay down loan fell under  95052 not  9504 of the ucc holding that general obligation to pay money under a disputed provision of the tax code was not a taking holding that the secured partys contract and quasicontract claims fail as a matter of law because they are subject to the buyers ucc defenses and its right to recoupment and setoff under the agreements between the buyer and the debtor holding that declaratory judgment requiring party to pay a specific sum of money is properly characterized as a money judgment holding that section 506d does not permit the strip down of a partially secured lien