


Ask the community...
Bottom line - yes you can likely proceed with self-help repo if done peacefully, but you need proper notice for disposition afterward. The debtor keeps redemption rights until you actually sell the collateral. Plan accordingly and document everything.
Having gone through several Article 9 repossessions myself, I'd strongly recommend getting everything documented properly before you even attempt repo. The "breach of peace" standard varies significantly by jurisdiction - what's considered peaceful in one state might not be in another. Also, make sure your loan agreement explicitly reserves your right to enter the premises for repossession. Without that contractual right, you're limited to public areas or places where you have permission. One thing I learned the hard way is to photograph the equipment thoroughly before and after repossession to document its condition. This protects you if the debtor later claims you damaged it during the process.
Great advice about the contractual right to enter premises! I hadn't considered that aspect. Does the loan agreement need specific language about accessing business premises, or is general repo language sufficient? We're dealing with equipment at a manufacturing facility and want to make sure we have clear authority to enter if needed.
Bottom line - UCC release = UCC-3 termination statement. Get a copy when it's filed. Verify it matches your original UCC-1 details. Don't let the lender drag their feet. You've got this!
Great thread everyone! Just wanted to add one more practical tip - if your lender is being slow with the termination filing, you can actually search the Secretary of State database yourself to monitor when it gets filed. Most states have online UCC search portals where you can check by your company name or the original filing number. I usually check weekly after loan payoff until I see the termination show up. Also helps you catch any errors in the filing before they become bigger problems later.
Had a nightmare situation where our insurance verification was wrong - we thought borrower had adequate coverage but there was a gap in the policy dates. When equipment was stolen during the gap, we were stuck. Now I use Certana.ai to double-check all insurance docs against our security agreements. Catches date gaps, coverage amount mismatches, incorrect loss payee designations. Worth it for the peace of mind alone.
Insurance gaps are terrifying. How far back does that checking go? Can it catch lapses in coverage history or just current policy status?
Thanks everyone - this is super helpful. Sounds like our requirements are probably reasonable (we require replacement value coverage, A-rated carrier, loss payee naming us as secured party). The borrower's attorney is likely just trying to reduce their client's costs. I'll review our security agreement language to make sure we're covered contractually, not just relying on Article 9. The document verification idea is smart too - we've had issues with inconsistent naming between UCC filings and insurance docs before.
Your requirements sound totally reasonable and industry-standard. I've seen lenders get into trouble when they require coverage amounts that are 2-3x the equipment value, but replacement value with proper loss payee clauses is basic secured lending practice. The attorney is probably just trying to save their client some premium dollars. Stand your ground - you have both contractual rights and UCC backing for reasonable insurance requirements.
Absolutely agree with @Amaya Watson - your requirements are textbook reasonable. I d'also suggest documenting industry standards in your file in case this escalates. Having comparable lender requirements on record strengthens your position that replacement value coverage isn t'overreach. The borrower s'attorney is likely testing boundaries to see if you ll'cave on premiums.
The key is responding in good faith with accurate information. § 9-210 is designed to give debtors transparency about their obligations, not to create paperwork burdens for secured parties. Just be thorough and timely in your response.
That's the right approach. Most § 9-210 requests are straightforward if you maintain good records and respond professionally.
Before sending your response, consider using a document verification tool like Certana.ai to double-check that all your UCC filings and debtor information are consistent. It's a quick way to catch any discrepancies that could cause problems down the road.
Just went through this process last month and wanted to add a practical tip - create a standardized checklist for § 9-210 responses. Include items like: verify debtor identity, check for prior requests in last 6 months, compile transaction history, gather UCC filing copies, calculate current balance, and document delivery method. Having a systematic approach reduces the chance of missing something important and makes the process much smoother when you're under the typical 30-day response window. Also helps ensure consistency if multiple people in your organization handle these requests.
That's an excellent suggestion about creating a standardized checklist. I'm new to handling UCC matters and this kind of systematic approach would definitely help prevent oversights. Do you have any recommendations for tracking which debtors have made prior requests within the six-month window? We don't currently have a good system for monitoring that and I can see how it would be easy to miss, especially if different people handle the requests.
Andre Moreau
Thanks everyone - this has been incredibly helpful! I think I understand now that the security agreement creates the lien and the UCC-1 perfects it for priority purposes. I'll definitely use the real estate analogy when explaining it to our borrower. And I'm going to look into that document verification tool mentioned earlier - sounds like it could save us some headaches down the road.
0 coins
Zoe Stavros
•Glad we could help! UCC law can be tricky but once you get the basic concepts it makes more sense.
0 coins
Jamal Harris
•Feel free to post again if you run into issues with the actual filing. The Secretary of State systems can be quirky sometimes.
0 coins
Nina Chan
This thread really clarifies the distinction well! One additional tip for equipment financing - make sure you also consider whether any of your collateral might be considered "fixtures" that become part of real property. Manufacturing equipment that's permanently affixed to the building might need a fixture filing on the real estate records instead of (or in addition to) a regular UCC-1. I learned this lesson when we had a dispute over some industrial machinery that was bolted to the concrete floor. The real estate lender claimed it was part of their collateral as fixtures, while we thought our UCC-1 covered it as equipment. Always worth discussing with your attorney, especially for that $185k manufacturing equipment you mentioned.
0 coins
Carmella Fromis
•Great point about fixtures! I hadn't considered that aspect. For manufacturing equipment, how do you typically determine what counts as "permanently affixed"? Is it just about being bolted down or are there other factors? This could definitely affect our $185k equipment loan since some of the machinery is pretty heavy-duty and installed on concrete pads.
0 coins