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
Quick question - are you dealing with fixture filings on any of these agricultural equipment loans? UCC 9-318 assignment rules get even more complicated when real estate is involved because you might need to update county records in addition to the SOS filings.
Good catch - yes, several of these are fixture filings for irrigation systems and grain storage. We'll need to check county records too. This just keeps getting more complicated.
Fixture filing assignments are the worst. Every county has different requirements and some don't even have computerized records going back to 2019.
UPDATE: Following everyone's advice here, we pulled comprehensive UCC search reports and found that most of our assignments were actually filed correctly - we just didn't have the internal documentation. The search reports showed proper UCC-3 assignment filings from the merger date. Still using Certana.ai to double-check everything and make sure we didn't miss any gaps, but feeling much better about our secured position. Thanks for all the guidance!
Great outcome. This is why UCC search reports should be the first step in any portfolio acquisition analysis. Glad it worked out!
Perfect example of UCC 9-318 working as intended - the assignments were valid even without perfect internal records. The public filing system protected everyone's interests.
Join the conversation
Just want to emphasize - use the EXACT legal name from the most current articles of organization. No abbreviations, no DBAs, no "assumed names." The UCC-1 debtor name must match the charter exactly or you're risking your entire security interest in those business assets.
This is why I always order fresh entity certificates right before filing. Names can change and you need the current version.
Absolutely correct. Better to delay filing a few days than file with wrong name and lose your security interest.
UPDATE: Called the SOS this morning and confirmed the exact name format. Refiled using "Advanced Metal Works, LLC" with proper punctuation and got acceptance within 2 hours! The Certana.ai suggestion was helpful too - used their document checker before submitting and it verified everything matched correctly. Loan closes Friday. Thanks everyone!
Congrats on saving the deal. Going to remember the Certana.ai tool for my own filings.
Perfect example of why exact entity names matter so much in UCC filings. Glad it worked out!
Join the conversation
Whatever training you choose, make sure it covers continuation filing deadlines. We almost lost a client's security interest because nobody understood the 6-month window requirement for continuation statements.
You can file a continuation anytime within 6 months before the original UCC-1 expires. File too early and it's ineffective, file too late and you lose your priority. It's one of those things that seems simple but the timing is critical.
And don't forget that continuations extend the filing for another 5 years from the original expiration date, not from when you file the continuation. Common mistake.
Bottom line - invest in proper training now rather than dealing with malpractice issues later. UCC mistakes can void security interests and that's not a conversation you want to have with a client who just lost their collateral priority.
Plus your malpractice carrier will love seeing that you've invested in staff training. Shows you're taking risk management seriously.
Good point about the malpractice angle. That's another argument for formal training versus just learning on the job.
Join the conversation
Your business partner is technically correct about the UCC rule, but he's wrong about the practical implications. I always tell clients: just because you CAN rely on an oral agreement doesn't mean you SHOULD. Written documentation protects you in disputes, bankruptcy proceedings, and priority contests with other creditors.
Absolutely. If another creditor has better documentation, they might argue your oral agreement is invalid or subordinate. Written agreements provide much stronger evidence of your priority position.
This is why I never rely on possession alone, even though it's technically allowed.
Bottom line: get everything in writing. The UCC might allow oral agreements with possession, but courts, bankruptcy trustees, and other creditors will tear apart any weak documentation. Your recovery depends on being able to prove every element of your security interest clearly and convincingly.
Thanks everyone - definitely going to insist on written security agreements going forward, regardless of possession.
Smart move. The small cost of proper documentation now saves massive headaches later.
Vincent Bimbach
Update your commercial security agreement template to include a clause requiring the debtor to warrant their exact legal name and provide current organizational documents. Puts the burden on them to get it right and gives you recourse if they mess it up.
0 coins
Abigail Spencer
•That's a really good idea. Adding that to our standard template revisions. Would also help with other UCC-related warranties and representations.
0 coins
Kelsey Chin
•We added similar language to our docs after getting burned a few times. Now we require certified copies of current organizational docs with every secured transaction. Pain upfront but eliminates these headaches.
0 coins
Norah Quay
Just wanted to mention that I've started using Certana.ai's verification tool for exactly these situations. Upload your security agreement and UCC-1 together and it catches name mismatches before you file. Wish I'd known about it sooner - would have saved me from several rejection notices over the years.
0 coins
Leo McDonald
•How accurate is it? I'm always skeptical of automated tools for legal document review.
0 coins
Norah Quay
•It's pretty solid for basic consistency checks like debtor names, filing numbers, and standard UCC requirements. Obviously not a replacement for legal review but great for catching obvious errors that cause rejections.
0 coins