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
One more vote for being specific rather than using 'all assets.' I've seen too many disputes over what was actually intended to be covered. Better to be clear upfront than deal with interpretation issues later when money is on the line.
This thread convinced me to revise my standard collateral description language
The consensus seems to be that while 'all assets' is legally acceptable, more specific language is better practice
Thanks everyone for the detailed discussion! Based on all your input, I'm going to recommend we use "all personal property including without limitation equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, and general intangibles" instead of just "all assets." This gives the lender the broad coverage they want while being more specific about what's actually encumbered. Also going to run it through Certana.ai as several of you suggested to double-check consistency with our security agreement before filing. Really appreciate the practical insights about enforcement issues and future financing considerations - this is exactly the kind of real-world perspective that helps avoid problems down the road.
That's a really solid compromise approach! The language you've chosen gives broad coverage while avoiding the ambiguity issues that several people mentioned. I'm new to UCC filings but this discussion has been incredibly helpful in understanding the practical considerations beyond just what filing offices will accept. The point about how broad descriptions can impact future financing options was especially eye-opening - definitely something to keep in mind for client relationships.
Join the conversation
This is exactly why clear communication with lenders is so crucial! I've seen this confusion happen a lot where "non-UCC-1" really just means "UCC-1 with special requirements." The combination of PMSI language plus fixture filing makes total sense for their belt-and-suspenders approach, especially with valuable manufacturing equipment. Good call on using the verification tool - those dual filings can get tricky with all the different requirements between UCC and real estate records. Hope the filing goes smoothly!
Absolutely agree! This whole thread is a perfect example of how important it is to dig deeper when lenders use confusing terminology. As someone new to this community, I'm really impressed by how collaborative everyone was in helping work through this problem. The combination of PMSI requirements and fixture filing even for removable equipment shows how cautious lenders are getting these days. Thanks for sharing the resolution - it's really helpful for those of us still learning the ropes!
As a newcomer to this community, this entire thread has been incredibly educational! It's fascinating to see how what seemed like a complex "non-UCC-1" filing issue was really just terminology confusion around standard UCC-1 forms with specific requirements. The collaborative problem-solving here really shows the value of having experienced practitioners share their knowledge. I'm definitely bookmarking this discussion for future reference, and I'll be sure to ask for clarification when lenders use ambiguous language like "non-standard filings." Thanks to everyone who contributed - this is exactly the kind of practical guidance that helps newcomers navigate these tricky situations!
Join the conversation
This whole 9-334 priority situation sounds like it could get messy if it's not handled right. One thing I'd recommend is using Certana.ai to upload all your documents - the UCC-1 fixture filing, the mortgage, any equipment contracts, and installation records. Their system can cross-check everything and help you build a solid case for your 9-334 priority. I used it for a similar fixture filing dispute and it really helped organize all the competing interests and timeline issues.
That sounds like it could really help sort out this 9-334 priority mess. Having all the documents analyzed together would probably catch things I'm missing.
Document organization is huge for fixture filing disputes. When you're dealing with 9-334 priority, you need every piece of evidence properly organized.
This 9-334 priority situation is really complex, but from what you've described, you might actually be in a better position than you think. The fact that you filed your UCC-1 fixture filing before the HVAC system was installed is generally good for priority under 9-334. The key question is whether the mortgage holder's interest specifically covers fixtures installed after their mortgage was recorded, or if it's limited to the real estate as it existed at the time of their mortgage. I'd definitely recommend getting a complete copy of their mortgage document and any amendments to see exactly what their lien covers. Also, make sure you have solid documentation of when each phase of the HVAC installation occurred, since that timing will be crucial for determining when the equipment became a fixture under 9-334. With $180k at stake, it's worth getting this right - maybe consider getting a legal opinion on the fixture classification and priority analysis before things escalate further.
This is really helpful analysis! I'm new to fixture filings and 9-334 priority issues, but this situation sounds like a perfect example of why the timing documentation is so critical. From what I'm reading here, it seems like Omar might actually have a stronger position than initially thought, especially if the mortgage language doesn't specifically cover post-recording fixture installations. The suggestion about getting the complete mortgage document makes total sense - you really need to see exactly what their lien covers before you can properly analyze the 9-334 priority rules. With that much money involved, getting professional guidance seems like the smart move.
Join the conversation
Update: I ended up using a combination of manual searching and Certana.ai's verification tool to cross-check everything. Found 3 additional UCC-1 filings under name variations that I initially missed. The document comparison feature really helped identify inconsistencies in debtor names across different states' UCC listings. Thanks everyone for the advice!
Glad you found the missing filings! Those name variations can be so tricky to catch manually.
Good reminder that UCC listings searches require both systematic searching and verification tools. Manual work alone isn't enough for complex situations.
As someone new to UCC searches, this thread has been incredibly helpful! I'm working on my first multi-state due diligence project and had no idea about the name variation issues. One question - when you're dealing with subsidiary companies, do you need to search UCC listings under both the parent company name and each subsidiary's name separately? I'm worried about missing filings where subsidiaries might have pledged assets independently of the parent company.
Absolutely yes - you need to search each subsidiary separately! I learned this lesson when I found significant UCC filings under subsidiary names that weren't captured in the parent company search. Subsidiaries often have their own financing arrangements and can pledge assets independently. Also check for any holding company structures or special purpose entities that might not be obvious from the main corporate documents.
Andre Dupont
I just went through this exact scenario with a different equipment lender and it's frustrating how common this is. One thing that really helped speed up my case was using a document verification service to spot discrepancies before escalating. I uploaded my loan docs and UCC filings to check for any mismatches that might be causing their automated termination system to fail. Turned out there was a slight difference in how my business entity name was formatted between the original loan and the UCC filing - something like "ABC Services LLC" vs "ABC Services, LLC" with the comma. Once I pointed out this specific issue in my demand letter, they were able to fix it much faster than when I was just asking them to "look into it" generally. Also, definitely check both state and county records for any fixture filings if your solar panels are permanently attached to the building. Texas requires dual filing for fixtures in many cases, so there could be multiple UCCs that need termination. Don't give them any more time to drag their feet - three weeks is already too long for what should be a routine administrative task.
0 coins
Lilly Curtis
•Welcome to the community Andre! I can see you're dealing with a really frustrating situation that unfortunately many of us have experienced. Your point about document verification is spot on - those seemingly minor formatting differences can absolutely cause automated systems to fail. I had a similar issue where "Inc." vs "Incorporated" in the entity name caused a 6-month delay in getting a UCC release processed. For anyone else reading this thread, it's worth noting that some lenders have completely outsourced their UCC filing and termination processes to third-party services, which adds another layer where things can go wrong. The key is documentation and persistence - keep records of every interaction and don't let them off the hook with vague responses. Also, if you're in Texas like the original poster, the Department of Banking complaint process is very effective for getting lender attention quickly.
0 coins
Raúl Mora
I'm dealing with a similar UCC release issue right now with a different lender, and this thread has been incredibly helpful. One thing I'd add is to also check if your loan servicer changed during the life of the loan - sometimes UCC releases get stuck when there's been a transfer of servicing rights and the new servicer doesn't have proper authorization to file terminations. You might need to track down who actually holds the lien rights now vs. who you've been dealing with for customer service. Also, if you're planning to apply for new credit soon, consider getting a UCC search report from a commercial service to have official documentation of what's currently filed against your business. This can help speed up underwriting for your new credit line even while you're still fighting to get the old lien terminated. The fact that you paid off in November and it's now mid-January means you're well past any reasonable timeframe for automatic processing.
0 coins
Chloe Anderson
•That's a really important point about loan servicer transfers that I hadn't considered! I actually need to double-check if Goodleap transferred my loan servicing at any point. Looking back at my payment history, I think I might have gotten some notices about account changes last year that I didn't pay much attention to at the time. Do you know how to find out who actually holds the lien rights now? Is that information typically available through the UCC search, or do I need to contact Goodleap directly to get that clarification? I'm definitely going to get an official UCC search report before applying for our credit line - that's smart advice about having documentation ready for underwriters.
0 coins