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
Liv Park
Update: I revised my collateral description to specifically reference insurance proceeds and other proceeds as defined in UCC 9-102(a)(65) and the filing was accepted! Thanks everyone for the help. This forum is so much more helpful than trying to decipher the UCC commentary on my own.
Ryder Greene
•That's awesome. Hopefully this thread helps other people with the same issue.
Great to see the revision worked. The proceeds definition can be tricky but once you get the language right it's usually smooth sailing.
As someone new to UCC filings, this thread has been incredibly educational! I'm working on my first equipment financing deal and was about to make the same mistake with a generic "all equipment and proceeds thereof" description. Based on what everyone's shared, it sounds like the key is being specific about what types of proceeds you're claiming - insurance payouts, sale proceeds, etc. - rather than just using the blanket "proceeds" language. I'm definitely going to reference UCC 9-102(a)(65) in my collateral description and maybe look into that Certana.ai tool that was mentioned to double-check my work before filing. Thanks for all the practical advice!
Join the conversation
Just to add to what everyone else said - if you're in a state that requires fixture filings for certain types of equipment, those have the same 5-year rule. Don't forget to check those too if any of your collateral is attached to real estate.
Sarah Ali
•Good reminder about fixture filings. Those are easy to overlook but just as important for maintaining security interests.
Jayden Hill
•Fixture filings can be even trickier because they involve both UCC and real estate recording requirements. Definitely check with a lawyer if you have any fixture-related collateral.
This is a really important discussion that highlights how critical UCC tracking is. I'm relatively new to managing secured transactions, but from what I'm reading here, it sounds like the key is having a systematic approach to monitor these deadlines well in advance. The 5-year rule seems unforgiving, but I can see why it exists to keep public records clean. For those who have dealt with expired filings, what's the typical cost impact when you lose priority and have to re-file? I'm trying to understand the full financial implications beyond just the paperwork hassle.
Diego Chavez
•Great question about the financial implications! From my experience, the costs can add up quickly. Beyond the obvious re-filing fees (usually $20-50 per UCC-1), you might face higher interest rates if your lender views the lapsed security as increased risk. We had one situation where losing first lien position meant the bank required additional collateral worth about 15% more than the original loan balance. The real killer is if another creditor filed between your expiration and re-filing - you could end up subordinated on assets you've been financing for years. That's why some people here mentioned using automated tracking tools like Certana.ai. The prevention cost is minimal compared to the potential exposure.
Join the conversation
Yara Assad
I'm dealing with a similar issue right now and this thread has been incredibly helpful! Just to confirm my understanding - if I have an LLC borrower with an individual guarantor, I need two separate UCC1 forms, one for each debtor, even though it's the same loan and same collateral. And I need to be absolutely certain about the exact legal names from the source documents. One question though - do both UCC1 forms need to describe the collateral identically, or can the descriptions vary slightly as long as they cover the same equipment?
Yes, you've got it right - separate forms for each debtor with exact legal names from source documents. For the collateral descriptions, they should be identical on both UCC1 forms since you're securing the same debt with the same equipment. Using different descriptions could create confusion later and might suggest different collateral is involved. Keep the descriptions consistent across both filings to avoid any potential issues with searches or priority disputes.
This is such a common source of confusion! I've been handling UCC filings for about 8 years now and can confirm what others have said - you absolutely need separate UCC1 forms for the LLC and the individual guarantor. They're distinct legal entities even though they're related to the same transaction. One tip I'd add is to make sure your loan documentation clearly states that both parties are debtors under the security agreement, not just that one is a guarantor. If the individual is only guaranteeing payment and not granting a security interest in the collateral, you might not need a UCC filing for them at all. Review your security agreement language carefully to confirm both parties are actually granting security interests in the same collateral.
That's a really important distinction about the security agreement language! I hadn't thought about whether the guarantor is actually granting a security interest versus just guaranteeing payment. In my experience, most loan documents do make both parties debtors under the security agreement, but you're absolutely right that it's worth double-checking. If the individual guarantor isn't actually pledging the collateral, then a UCC filing on them would be unnecessary and potentially confusing. Thanks for pointing that out - it could save someone from filing an extra UCC1 they don't actually need.
Join the conversation
This thread is making me realize I need to review our UCC sale procedures. We haven't had to liquidate collateral yet but want to be prepared. Should we have standard checklists for documentation and notice requirements?
That's smart planning. I'd also recommend having a relationship with Certana.ai or similar document verification service before you need it. When you're dealing with a default, you want to catch any documentation issues early.
Wish we had thought of that beforehand. Now we're scrambling to make sure everything was done correctly after the fact.
This is a really comprehensive discussion that's helping me understand the intricacies of UCC sale challenges. As someone new to secured lending, I'm curious about the deficiency balance aspect - if the debtor successfully challenges the sale as commercially unreasonable, does that typically eliminate or reduce their remaining debt obligation? Or would you just have to redo the sale process?
Ruby Blake
Update: I went ahead and filed the termination statement this morning using the exact debtor name and filing number from the original UCC-1. Used Certana.ai to double-check everything before filing and it confirmed all the details matched properly. Termination was accepted and the debtor is happy. Thanks for all the advice!
0 coins
Ella Harper
•Good to hear the verification tool worked well for you. Those little details can make such a big difference.
0 coins
PrinceJoe
•Perfect example of why it's worth investing in tools that catch errors before they become problems.
0 coins
Camila Jordan
Just wanted to add that it's also worth checking if your state requires any specific language or disclaimers on the termination statement. Some states have standardized forms or require certain statutory language to be included. Also, if you're dealing with consumer goods as collateral, there might be additional consumer protection requirements to consider. The basic process is the same, but these little details can prevent rejections or compliance issues down the road.
0 coins