Ask the community...
- DO post questions about your issues.
- DO answer questions and support each other.
- DO post tips & tricks to help folks.
- DO NOT post call problems here - there is a support tab at the top for that :)
Join the conversation
Join the conversation
Welcome to the community! I've been following UCC termination issues in the solar industry for a while now, and your situation with Sunnova is unfortunately very typical. The key issues you've identified - the 3-week delay and the name discrepancy - are both serious problems that need immediate attention given your refinancing timeline. Here's what I'd recommend: First, do that UCC search immediately to confirm exactly how your LLC name appears on the original filing. Even minor variations like "LLC" vs "Limited Liability Company" will cause automatic rejections. Second, escalate beyond customer service to Sunnova's legal or compliance department - reference UCC Article 9-513 which requires them to provide the termination statement within a reasonable time after the obligation is satisfied. Third, get your title company involved now rather than waiting. They have established relationships with solar companies and can often expedite these terminations when there's a pending transaction. Finally, send Sunnova a certified letter with a hard 10-day deadline (given your tight timeline) referencing their legal obligations and the potential for statutory damages under UCC 9-625 if they fail to comply. Document everything - you may need this paper trail if you have to escalate further. The fact that the equipment is removed and loan is paid off makes this a clear-cut case, but solar companies notoriously drag their feet on the paperwork cleanup.
This is exactly the comprehensive roadmap I needed! The 10-day deadline makes sense given how tight my refinancing timeline is - no point giving them more time to drag their feet. I'm particularly glad you emphasized getting the title company involved now rather than waiting. I was thinking of that as a last resort, but you're right that they probably have much better established channels with these solar companies. The certified letter approach with specific UCC code references seems to be the consensus here, and documenting everything is smart in case this turns into a bigger legal issue. I'm going to start with that UCC search first thing tomorrow morning to see exactly how the name appears, then craft a letter referencing UCC 9-513 and 9-625. Thanks for laying out such a clear action plan - this gives me confidence I can get this resolved before the refinancing closes.
I'm dealing with a similar UCC termination nightmare with SolarCity (now Tesla) from 2019! Reading through everyone's advice here, I'm realizing I've been way too passive in my approach. The specific UCC code sections people are mentioning (9-513 and 9-625) are exactly what I needed - I had no idea there were statutory damages for non-compliance. My situation is slightly different since we're selling rather than refinancing, but the buyer's lender is flagging the active UCC lien even though we paid off the solar loan two years ago. I've been going through regular customer service for months with no luck. Going to try the executive escalation route and get our title company involved immediately. One question for the group - has anyone had success with filing complaints with state regulatory agencies? My state has a solar contractor licensing board and I'm wondering if that might be another pressure point to get these companies to respond faster.
Yes, filing complaints with state regulatory agencies can definitely be effective! I've seen solar companies respond much faster when they get contacted by the state contractor licensing board or the attorney general's consumer protection division. Since SolarCity/Tesla is such a big player, regulatory agencies tend to take complaints about them seriously because they affect so many consumers. In your case, I'd file complaints with both the solar contractor licensing board (for failure to properly close out the installation) and your state's consumer protection agency (for failure to comply with UCC termination requirements). Make sure to reference the specific UCC code sections (9-513 for the termination obligation and 9-625 for potential damages) in your complaint - it shows you understand the legal requirements and aren't just a frustrated consumer. Many states also have expedited complaint processes for real estate transactions, so mention that the active UCC lien is preventing your home sale. The regulatory pressure combined with the executive escalation approach usually gets results within 1-2 weeks.
Join the conversation
Thanks for all the detailed responses here - this is incredibly helpful for understanding the PPSA landscape. I'm particularly interested in the provincial variations mentioned. For equipment and inventory collateral like Austin described, are there any provinces that are particularly challenging or have unique requirements? I'm trying to help my firm prepare for similar cross-border deals and want to know which jurisdictions require extra attention beyond just getting local counsel involved.
From my experience, Quebec is probably the most challenging since they use the Civil Code system rather than common law like the other provinces. Their security registration is completely different - they use the RDPRM (Registre des droits personnels et réels mobiliers) instead of PPSA. The concepts and terminology are quite different from both UCC and PPSA systems. Saskatchewan can also be tricky because they have some unique agricultural collateral provisions that don't exist in other provinces. For standard equipment and inventory though, Ontario and Alberta are probably the most straightforward if you're coming from a UCC background.
Building on the Quebec point - that's absolutely critical to understand. Quebec's Civil Code system means you're dealing with hypothecs rather than security interests, and the RDPRM filing requirements are completely different from PPSA. The good news is that for equipment and inventory, the basic concepts translate reasonably well once you understand the terminology differences. But you definitely need Quebec counsel - don't try to wing it based on your PPSA knowledge from other provinces. Also worth noting that if your debtor has operations in Quebec plus common law provinces, you might need different security documentation for each jurisdiction, not just different filings. The underlying security agreement structures can vary significantly between Civil Code and common law systems.
This is really helpful context about Quebec's system. I'm curious about the documentation differences you mentioned - when you say the underlying security agreement structures can vary, are you talking about fundamental differences in how the security is created and described, or more about terminology and formatting? We're used to adapting our standard security agreement templates for different states' UCC variations, but it sounds like Quebec might require a more substantial rethink of the documentation approach.
Join the conversation
Definitely false. I teach secured transactions and this is a common misconception. The UCC is statutory law governing commercial transactions, while the Restatement provides guidance on general contract principles. Completely different legal authorities with different purposes.
Thank you for the clarification! This helps me understand why UCC filings have such specific technical requirements.
Exactly. UCC Article 9 creates a comprehensive framework for secured transactions that's much more specific than general contract law principles.
Absolutely false! As someone who handles UCC filings regularly, I can confirm these are completely separate legal frameworks. The UCC (particularly Article 9) governs secured transactions with very specific statutory requirements - debtor name accuracy, collateral descriptions, filing deadlines, continuation statements, etc. The Restatement of Contracts is persuasive authority from the ALI that addresses general contract formation and interpretation principles. When you're dealing with UCC-1 filings or amendments, you need to follow Article 9's technical requirements, not contract restatement guidance. They serve totally different functions in commercial law practice.
Join the conversation
For what it's worth, I've found that being overly specific can sometimes cause more problems than being too general. If you list specific equipment and then they trade it in or modify it, you might lose perfection. The 'including but not limited to' language is your friend.
That makes sense. I think I'm overthinking this - the standard broad language with specific examples is probably the way to go.
Don't forget about proceeds language too. 'All proceeds of the foregoing' is pretty standard and important for coverage continuity.
Just curious - are you handling the multi-state filings yourself or using a service? I've found that filing services sometimes catch state-specific issues that I miss when I'm doing it manually.
If you do decide to use Certana or similar tools, they're really helpful for multi-state consistency checks. Can catch little differences between state requirements.
As someone new to UCC filings, I'm curious about the timing - do you typically file all states simultaneously or stagger them? And is there any advantage to filing in the debtor's home state first?
Saanvi Krishnaswami
This discussion has been incredibly valuable! As someone new to Tennessee UCC filings, I was definitely overthinking the fee structure. The $15 base + $1 per additional debtor formula is so much cleaner than what I've seen in other states. I especially appreciate the clarification that continuations and amendments are flat $15 regardless of debtor count - that's going to make client billing much more predictable. One quick follow-up question: when you're doing online filings, does Tennessee's system automatically calculate the total fees as you enter debtor information, or do you have to manually calculate before the final payment screen?
0 coins
Ryder Greene
•Great question about the fee calculation! Tennessee's online system does automatically calculate the total fees as you add debtors to your filing. When you're filling out the UCC-1 form online, there's a running total that updates in real-time as you add each additional debtor name. By the time you get to the payment screen, it shows you the exact breakdown - like "$15 base filing fee + $2 additional debtor fees = $17 total" - so there's no guesswork involved. It's actually one of the better-designed state portals I've used in terms of transparency about what you're paying for. Makes the whole process much less stressful when you can see exactly how they're calculating everything before you commit to the payment.
0 coins
Alexander Evans
Really appreciate everyone's detailed responses here! This has cleared up my confusion completely. The $15 base + $1 per additional debtor structure is much simpler than I was making it out to be. Sounds like Tennessee is actually one of the more filer-friendly states once you understand the basics. I'm feeling much more confident about those three filings next week - $47 total based on my debtor count breakdown. The tip about the online system showing running fee calculations is particularly reassuring. Thanks for taking the time to share your real-world experience, especially the clarifications about amendments and continuations being flat $15. This community is incredibly helpful for navigating the nuances of multi-state UCC practice.
0 coins
Elliott luviBorBatman
•Glad this thread helped clarify things for you! Tennessee really is one of the more straightforward states once you get past the initial confusion. The predictable fee structure makes it much easier to budget for clients compared to states with all the hidden processing fees and complicated tier systems. Good luck with your three filings next week - sounds like you've got the math figured out perfectly. And definitely take advantage of that online portal, it makes the whole process much smoother than paper filings.
0 coins