in Brier’s CD. Because the bank unmistakably perfected its security interest before the Superior Court issued the writ of attachment, let alone before it became effective, the bank’s right to apply the CD to the defaulted loan trumps Read & Lundy’s later-served writ of attachment. We also note that the bank possessed superior rights to the CD because it had the common-law right to set off the CD against the balance due on the default nd the money was not in a special or reserve account. Finally, the debt was mature because CSI’s repeated late payments and other failures to comply with the loan terms constituted defaults under the applicable loan documents, thereby entitling the bank to deem the entire debt due. See Frierson v. United Farm Agency, Inc., 868 F.2d 302, 304 (8th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Although Read & Lundy served the bank with
holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or holding that for setoff purposes    a debt is due when the bank has the power to deem the debt due not when the bank actually exercises that power holding that bank had right to set off funds in a customers account against debt that the bank customer had incurred as a surety or guarantor holding that reporting of historically accurate debt may violate the fcra when the reporting did not include that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy or that the debt was in dispute holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt