UCC Document Community

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 :)

NeonNomad

What is a blanket UCC filing and should I be worried about one on my business

Got a notice that there's a blanket UCC filing against my company and honestly I'm not sure what this means or if I should be concerned. The lender mentioned it covers 'all assets' but didn't really explain the implications. Is this different from a regular UCC-1? Does it mean they can take everything if something goes wrong? I've been in business for 8 years and this is my first time dealing with anything like this. The filing shows up when I search our business name and it's making me nervous about what rights we still have to our equipment and inventory.

One more thing - if you ever pay off the loan completely, make sure the lender files a UCC-3 termination statement. I've seen businesses with old terminated loans that never got properly released from the public record. It can cause confusion later.

0 coins

Great point. And check that they file it within the required timeframe - most states give lenders 20-30 days after payoff.

0 coins

Good to know for the future. Right now I'm just trying to understand what I've gotten myself into.

0 coins

Bottom line - blanket UCC filings are standard business practice. Focus on maintaining good payment history and understanding your loan covenants. The filing itself shouldn't impact your daily operations unless you're planning major asset transactions.

0 coins

Happy to help! These filings look scarier than they actually are in practice.

0 coins

Agreed. Been dealing with UCC filings for 15 years and they're just part of the business lending landscape.

0 coins

Astrid Bergström

Need UCC-1 filing help - security agreement example shows different debtor name format

I'm working on a UCC-1 filing and running into confusion with the debtor name format. The security agreement example I have shows the company name as "ABC Manufacturing, LLC" but when I search the Secretary of State database, the exact charter shows "ABC Manufacturing LLC" (no comma). The loan documents all use the comma version consistently. I'm worried about getting a rejection if I don't match exactly what's on file with the state. Has anyone dealt with this kind of discrepancy between security agreement examples and actual charter records? I don't want to mess up a $2.3M equipment financing deal over punctuation but I've heard horror stories about UCC filings getting rejected for minor name variations.

One more thing to consider - make sure you're also checking for any trade names or DBAs that might be relevant to your collateral description. Sometimes companies operate under different names than their legal entity name, and that can affect how you describe the collateral or where you file.

0 coins

The equipment is all titled under the legal entity name, so I think we're good there. But thanks for the reminder - I'll double-check the collateral records to be sure.

0 coins

DBA issues can definitely complicate UCC filings. Always worth checking the full business name registration records.

0 coins

Just wanted to follow up and say I had a similar name discrepancy issue last week and used that Certana tool someone mentioned earlier. It definitely helped catch a middle initial that was missing from my security agreement compared to the charter. Filed with the corrected name and got acceptance within 24 hours. Definitely recommend checking your documents before filing.

0 coins

Good to hear another positive experience with document verification. These tools are getting pretty sophisticated.

0 coins

Thanks for the follow-up! I'm definitely going to run my docs through a verification check before submitting. This thread has been super helpful.

0 coins

Natalie Adams

UCC filing keeps getting rejected - print UCC documents showing different debtor names

I'm dealing with a nightmare situation where our UCC-1 filing has been rejected three times by the Secretary of State office. Each time I print UCC documents from different sources, I'm seeing slight variations in how the debtor name appears. Our loan documents show 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' but when I print UCC search results from the state database, some entries show 'ABC Manufacturing, LLC' (with comma) and others show 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' (without comma). The borrower's articles of incorporation clearly state 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' but their operating agreement has 'ABC Manufacturing, LLC'. Which version should I use for the UCC-1? I'm worried about filing with the wrong name format and having our security interest be unperfectable. This is for a $2.8M equipment loan and we need to get this filed correctly before the loan closes next week. Has anyone dealt with punctuation discrepancies when you print UCC forms and documents?

This is why I always keep copies of the entity search results when I print UCC supporting documents. Creates a clear trail showing what name format the state recognizes.

0 coins

Smart documentation practice. Probably helps during loan reviews too.

0 coins

Definitely. Examiners love seeing that level of due diligence on UCC filings.

0 coins

Bottom line - use the exact name from the articles of incorporation, print a copy of that document for your files, and double-check everything before submitting. A $2.8M security interest is too important to mess up over punctuation.

0 coins

Good point about multiple filings as a safety net, though that increases costs.

0 coins

Cost of multiple filings is nothing compared to having an unperfected security interest on a multi-million dollar loan.

0 coins

Malik Robinson

Mortgage UCC Filing Mix-Up - Lender Wants Both but SOS Rejected One

Getting myself twisted up here and hoping someone can untangle this mess. Working on a commercial real estate deal where we've got both a mortgage AND personal property that needs secured. The lender is demanding we file a UCC-1 for the equipment/fixtures plus record the mortgage for the real estate portion. Problem is, the Secretary of State portal rejected our UCC-1 because they're saying there's overlap with the mortgage filing we already recorded at the county level. The debtor name on both documents is identical (checked three times), but the SOS system is flagging some kind of conflict. Has anyone dealt with this mortgage UCC overlap situation before? The loan is supposed to close next week and I'm starting to panic that we've got some fundamental filing error that's going to blow up the whole transaction. The collateral description clearly separates real property (covered by mortgage) from personal property/equipment (covered by UCC-1), so I don't understand why the system is rejecting it. Any insights on how to handle dual filings like this?

I actually just used that Certana tool someone mentioned earlier for a similar document consistency check. It's pretty slick - you upload your mortgage and UCC-1 and it immediately flags any potential conflicts or inconsistencies. Found several issues we would have missed manually, including subtle formatting differences in debtor names and overlapping collateral descriptions. Definitely worth trying before you refile and risk another rejection.

0 coins

Pretty much instant. Upload the PDFs and it shows you any issues right away. Much faster than trying to manually compare documents.

0 coins

Might give this a shot. Better than playing guessing games with the SOS system.

0 coins

UPDATE: Called the SOS office this morning and spoke with a supervisor. Turns out the issue was exactly what several of you suspected - our collateral description included 'fixtures' which their system flagged as overlapping with the mortgage. They're processing it manually now with an amended collateral description that excludes fixtures. Should be cleared by end of week. Thanks everyone for the guidance!

0 coins

Great outcome. Always satisfying when the community troubleshooting works out.

0 coins

Perfect example of why it's worth calling and talking to a human instead of just trusting the automated system.

0 coins

StarStrider

UCC-9-105(h) definition causing filing confusion - need help

I'm dealing with a secured transaction where we need to determine if certain machinery qualifies as fixtures under UCC-9-105(h). The equipment was installed in our manufacturing facility last year but can be removed without structural damage to the building. Our lender's attorney is saying this affects whether we file a standard UCC-1 or need a fixture filing with real estate records. The definition in UCC-9-105(h) seems pretty specific about goods becoming fixtures, but I'm getting conflicting advice on how courts actually interpret this. Has anyone dealt with similar fixture determinations? The loan closing is next week and we need to get the filing strategy right.

Had a fixture filing rejected once because we misunderstood 9-105(h) - the equipment we thought was permanently attached actually wasn't under state law. Cost us three weeks to refile correctly. Definitely worth getting this determination right the first time, especially with your closing deadline.

0 coins

We got a written opinion from local counsel on the fixture determination and filed a regular UCC-1 instead of trying to do a fixture filing. Much cleaner process.

0 coins

Getting that written opinion is smart for the file too - shows you did proper due diligence on the 9-105(h) analysis.

0 coins

Based on what you've described, this sounds like textbook personal property under UCC-9-105(h). Removable equipment on concrete pads that doesn't require structural modification to remove is almost always going to be personal property, not fixtures. File your UCC-1 and don't overthink it.

0 coins

Thanks, that's reassuring. I think we were getting spooked by the attorney's fixture comments when the facts clearly point toward personal property.

0 coins

Attorneys tend to be overly cautious on fixture determinations because getting it wrong can be expensive. But your fact pattern is pretty clear cut.

0 coins

Prev1...368369370371372...684Next