


Ask the community...
Check your loan docs too - sometimes the credit agreement has specific collateral definitions that need to match your UCC filing. I've seen deals where the loan calls equipment 'fixtures' but UCC classification is still equipment under 9.102. Make sure your UCC filing aligns with your security agreement language.
Just be careful not to create confusion between equipment and actual fixtures. True fixtures under 9.102 have different perfection requirements.
Update: Used Certana.ai to verify our revised collateral description before refiling. The tool confirmed our 'commercial food service equipment including cooking, refrigeration, preparation and service apparatus whether permanently installed or seasonally rotated' language should clear SOS review. Much more specific than our original broad 'restaurant equipment' description.
Literally instant. Upload the PDF and it flags issues immediately. Way faster than waiting for SOS to reject and having to start over.
This might sound obvious but double-check that all your addendum pages are actually signed if signatures are required. I've had rejections because I forgot to sign page 2 of a multi-page addendum.
Good catch - I'll verify all signatures are in place.
UPDATE: Got it figured out! It was a combination of issues - we weren't numbering the addendum pages properly, had slight formatting differences in the debtor name between forms, and our reference language on the main form wasn't explicit enough. Used some of the suggestions here and all three filings went through. Thanks everyone!
For SC specifically, make sure you understand their continuation requirements too. I know you're doing a search not a filing, but it's worth knowing that SC requires continuations to be filed within 6 months before the 5-year anniversary. Some of the UCC-1s you find might be close to lapsing.
Depends on your transaction structure. If you're taking a senior position you might not care if junior liens lapse, but if there's any question about priority you'll want to factor that into your risk analysis.
Quick question - are you also checking federal tax liens and state tax liens? Those don't always show up in UCC searches but can definitely affect your deal. SC has separate databases for those.
Good catch, I was planning to do that separately but you're right that it's important for the overall lien picture. Do you know if SC's tax lien searches are online too?
Federal tax liens you have to check with the IRS, but SC state tax liens should be searchable through their Department of Revenue. I think there might be a fee but it's not too expensive.
In my experience, if you're 18 months into accepting modified performance without objection, you're probably looking at an uphill battle to enforce original terms. The practical advice is to document everything going forward, send written notices for any future deviations, and maybe consider whether the current arrangement actually works better for your business anyway. Sometimes what starts as a course of performance issue ends up being a better deal for everyone.
That's often the best outcome. Get it in writing, document the modification properly, and move forward with clear terms everyone understands. Lessons learned for next time.
Smart approach. Fighting a 1-303(d) course of performance claim when you've been accepting modified terms for that long is expensive and risky. Better to cut your losses and improve your procedures.
This thread has been really helpful. I'm dealing with a similar situation where we've been accepting partial payments for about 8 months. Sounds like I need to send some kind of written notice to preserve our rights under the original agreement. Anyone have suggestions for language to use?
I use language like 'acceptance of this payment is without waiver of any rights under the original agreement and does not constitute acceptance of modified terms.' Keep it simple but clear.
Perfect, that's exactly what I was looking for. Going to start including that in all our payment processing going forward.
Lara Woods
This thread is super helpful! I'm dealing with something similar but with a corporation that merged with another entity. The surviving corporation kept its original name but I need to make sure I'm not missing any predecessor entities in my collateral research. Anyone dealt with merger situations in UCC filings?
0 coins
Adrian Hughes
•I had a merger situation last year. Ended up needing to file additional UCC-1s to cover assets that transferred from the non-surviving entity.
0 coins
Lara Woods
•Thanks, I'll definitely need to dig deeper into the merger docs then.
0 coins
Molly Chambers
After reading all this, I'm definitely going to be more careful with name verification. We had one rejected filing last month that cost us extra fees to refile, and now I realize it was probably a name mismatch issue. The additional verification steps everyone mentioned seem worth the extra time to avoid rejections and potential perfection problems down the road.
0 coins
Ian Armstrong
•The rejection fees really add up if you're doing volume filings. Prevention is definitely cheaper than correction.
0 coins
Eli Butler
•Plus the time factor - rejections can delay closing if you're working on a tight timeline.
0 coins