UCC Document Community

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 :)

Kaylee Cook

Need help understanding what exactly counts as a security agreement for UCC filing purposes

I'm working on a UCC-1 filing and getting confused about what documents actually qualify as the security agreement. My lender sent me a loan agreement, a promissory note, and something called a 'Security Agreement and Financing Statement.' Do I need all three referenced in the UCC filing? I've heard that sometimes the loan docs themselves can serve as the security agreement but I'm not sure what the specific requirements are. This is for equipment financing on some manufacturing equipment worth about $340K. Anyone dealt with this before? I don't want to mess up the filing because apparently if you don't reference the right security agreement the whole lien could be invalid.

Tony Brooks

•

Quick question - if I have multiple pieces of equipment from different purchases, can one security agreement cover all of them or do I need separate agreements for each purchase?

0 coins

One security agreement can definitely cover multiple pieces of collateral. In fact, it's pretty common to have a master security agreement that covers 'all equipment' and then add specific items with amendments.

0 coins

Just make sure your collateral description is clear enough to identify what's covered. Vague descriptions like 'business assets' might not hold up in court.

0 coins

Yara Campbell

•

Bottom line: your security agreement is the foundation of everything. Without a valid security agreement that properly creates the security interest, your UCC filing is just expensive wallpaper. Make sure you have the granting language, proper collateral description, and all required signatures before you even think about filing the UCC-1.

0 coins

Isaac Wright

•

Smart approach. Better to take the time upfront than to deal with priority problems later when you find out your security interest wasn't properly created.

0 coins

Maya Diaz

•

And seriously consider using that document verification tool someone mentioned. These filing mistakes can be really expensive to fix after the fact.

0 coins

Daniel Rivera

UCC continuation filing rejected - debtor name mismatch nightmare

I'm dealing with a UCC continuation nightmare right now. Filed my UCC-3 continuation statement last week and it got rejected for "debtor name inconsistency." The original UCC-1 from 2020 has the debtor listed as "Mountain Peak Equipment LLC" but apparently their articles of incorporation show "Mountain Peak Equipment, LLC" with the comma. This is a $340K equipment loan and the continuation deadline is in 3 weeks. I've been going back and forth with the filing office but they're insisting the names have to match exactly. Has anyone dealt with this type of debtor name mismatch issue? I'm worried about losing perfection on this lien if I can't get this sorted out quickly. The borrower is being completely unhelpful and claims they "don't remember" if there was a comma in their original formation documents.

Amaya Watson

•

I've been doing UCC filings for 15 years and the name matching requirements have gotten so much stricter. Used to be you could get away with minor variations but not anymore. The electronic systems are unforgiving.

0 coins

Amaya Watson

•

Exactly. The old paper system had human review that could catch obvious errors. Now it's all automated matching.

0 coins

I actually prefer the strict matching. Eliminates ambiguity in lien searches.

0 coins

Check if your state has any guidance on entity name variations. Some states publish lists of acceptable abbreviations (LLC vs L.L.C. vs Limited Liability Company) but punctuation differences usually aren't covered.

0 coins

Daniel Rivera

•

I'll look into that. Haven't seen any guidance specifically about comma usage in entity names.

0 coins

Levi Parker

•

The UCC guidance usually says to use the exact name from the formation documents, punctuation and all.

0 coins

Emily Parker

Division 9 of UCC Secured Transaction Rules - Filing Number Cross-Reference Issues

I'm dealing with a secured transaction under division 9 of UCC and running into some cross-reference problems with my filing numbers. We have a complex equipment financing deal where the original UCC-1 was filed in 2022, but now I need to file a UCC-3 amendment to add additional collateral. The issue is that our debtor entity changed its legal name slightly last year (added 'LLC' to the end), and I'm not sure if this creates a problem under division 9 rules for the amendment filing. The original UCC-1 shows 'Apex Manufacturing' but now they're officially 'Apex Manufacturing LLC' on all their corporate documents. I've heard conflicting advice about whether this requires a separate UCC-1 for the new name or if I can just amend the existing filing. The loan amount is substantial ($2.8M) and we can't afford to have a gap in perfection. Has anyone dealt with similar debtor name changes under division 9 of UCC? What's the safest approach here?

Another tool that might help is running both names through Certana.ai's verification system. It can cross-check your UCC-1 against the current corporate documents and flag any potential issues before you file. Might give you peace of mind on a deal this size.

0 coins

Emily Parker

•

I'm definitely going to check that out. With $2.8M on the line, any extra verification is worth it.

0 coins

Yeah, it's one of those things where the small cost upfront can save you from major problems down the road.

0 coins

Kaylee Cook

•

UPDATE: I ended up filing both a new UCC-1 under the current legal name and a UCC-3 amendment to the original filing. Also used that Certana.ai tool someone mentioned - it was actually really helpful for double-checking that all the document details matched up correctly. Thanks everyone for the advice!

0 coins

Aaliyah Reed

•

Glad the document verification tool worked out for you. That's exactly the kind of situation it's designed for.

0 coins

Zara Perez

•

Good outcome. Division 9 of UCC doesn't leave much room for error, so you made the right call.

0 coins

Lauren Wood

UCC filing rejected - notice of security agreement documentation issue

Filed a UCC-1 last week for equipment financing and got rejected by the SOS office. The rejection notice says 'insufficient documentation regarding notice of security agreement' but I'm not sure what they mean exactly. The debtor signed the security agreement and we have all the collateral descriptions properly listed (manufacturing equipment, serial numbers included). Has anyone dealt with this type of rejection before? The loan closes next Friday and I'm getting nervous about the timing. Do I need to attach the actual security agreement to the UCC-1 or is there some other notice requirement I'm missing?

Lucas Lindsey

•

UPDATE: Called Texas SOS this morning and you were all right - it was the comma in the entity name! The rep said their system flagged it as inconsistent documentation because the names didn't match exactly. Refiling today with corrected debtor name. Thanks everyone for the help!

0 coins

Jason Brewer

•

See what I mean about Texas being ridiculous? A COMMA caused all this trouble. But at least you caught it before your closing deadline.

0 coins

Good catch on calling them directly. Sometimes the rejection notices aren't clear about what exactly needs to be fixed.

0 coins

Sophie Duck

•

For future reference, always pull the official entity information from the Secretary of State database when preparing UCC filings. The exact legal name including all punctuation has to match their corporate records. Saves a lot of headaches and refiling fees.

0 coins

Sophie Duck

•

It's one of those things you only forget once! Most of us have been through similar rejections at some point in our careers.

0 coins

I keep a checklist now for UCC filings that includes verifying entity names against state records. Helps catch these issues before filing.

0 coins

Diego Chavez

UCC 9609 secured party default rights - equipment seizure timing questions

Been dealing with a borrower default situation and trying to understand UCC 9609 requirements for exercising our secured party rights. We have a perfected security interest in manufacturing equipment (filed UCC-1 back in 2022) and the debtor is 90+ days behind on payments. Our loan docs give us the right to take possession but I want to make sure we're following 9609 properly before we send our recovery team out there. The equipment is at their facility in an industrial park and we've already sent the required default notices. My question is about the timing - do we need to wait any specific period after sending notice before we can actually repossess under 9609? The statute mentions 'reasonable notification' but doesn't give exact timeframes. Also concerned about the 'peaceful' requirement - if they refuse access to the building, what are our options? Don't want to mess this up and have the debtor claim we violated 9609 procedures.

StarSurfer

•

been there with the 9609 stuff... its stressful when you're not sure if you're doing everything right. sounds like you've got good advice here though. the main thing is document everything and don't rush into anything that could be seen as confrontational. better to take extra time than mess up the whole process.

0 coins

Diego Chavez

•

Yeah, the stakes are high enough that we want to be extra careful about following proper procedures.

0 coins

StarSurfer

•

definitely. we had one case where we rushed things and ended up in court for months over procedural issues. learned our lesson about patience.

0 coins

Carmen Reyes

•

Final thought on UCC 9609 - consider whether the debtor might file bankruptcy before you complete the repossession. If they file Chapter 11, the automatic stay could complicate your rights even with a perfected security interest. Might want to move quickly once your notice period expires.

0 coins

Carmen Reyes

•

Not really, but if they're 90+ days behind and facing repossession, bankruptcy might be their next move. Just something to keep in mind for timing.

0 coins

Nia Harris

•

Even in bankruptcy, secured creditors usually have better protection than unsecured, but the automatic stay definitely complicates enforcement timing.

0 coins

Prev1...551552553554555...684Next