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 :)

Malik Robinson

•

Thanks everyone - this has been incredibly helpful. Sounds like the consensus is to proceed with the equipment lender filing their own UCC-1 with specific collateral description, rely on the subordination agreement for priority, and not expect the SBA to amend their original filing. I'm going to double-check all our documents for consistency issues before filing to avoid any rejections with this tight timeline.

0 coins

Freya Andersen

•

One last thing - make sure your equipment lender is comfortable with this structure. Some lenders prefer to see clean first priority positions rather than relying on subordination agreements.

0 coins

Jamal Brown

•

Absolutely agree with Freya's point - I'd recommend having a frank conversation with your equipment lender about their comfort level with subordination structures before finalizing everything. Some lenders have internal policies that require first lien positions regardless of subordination agreements, especially for equipment deals. Better to know now if they'll push back on the structure rather than find out at closing.

0 coins

Marcelle Drum

•

I'm new to UCC subordination deals but this thread has been incredibly educational. One question I haven't seen addressed - what happens if the equipment gets damaged or destroyed while both liens are in place? Does the subordination agreement typically address insurance proceeds and how they're distributed between the SBA and equipment lender? I'm working on a similar deal and want to make sure we're covering all the bases in our documentation.

0 coins

Zara Ahmed

•

This insurance discussion has been incredibly educational for someone just learning the ropes! @Rebecca Johnston brings up a crucial timing issue that I hadn t'considered. From what I understand, most equipment lenders require proof of insurance as a condition precedent to funding, not just to filing. The gap period you mention is typically handled by requiring the borrower to obtain a binder or commitment from their insurer showing coverage will be effective as of the equipment delivery date. During the interim period before delivery, the SBA s'existing blanket coverage would still apply, but the equipment lender usually requires their specific coverage requirements to be locked in contractually even if not yet effective. I d'think the subordination agreement should address this interim period explicitly - maybe stating that until the equipment-specific insurance is in place, the SBA s'existing coverage continues to protect both parties interests' in the collateral. This prevents any coverage gaps that could leave both lenders exposed.

0 coins

This has been such an incredibly thorough discussion on insurance considerations! As someone just starting out in secured transactions, I'm realizing there are so many layers to these deals that go well beyond the basic UCC mechanics. @Zara Ahmed s'point about insurance binders during the interim period is really practical - it seems like having that coverage commitment locked in early prevents a lot of potential gaps. One thing I m'wondering about though - when you have these complex multi-lender insurance arrangements, do you typically work with specialized insurance brokers who understand secured lending requirements, or can most commercial insurance agents handle these situations? I imagine explaining subordination structures and multiple loss payee arrangements to an insurance professional who isn t'familiar with UCC transactions could be challenging. Also, are there any particular insurance carriers that are more experienced with these types of arrangements, or is it more about finding the right broker to coordinate everything?

0 coins

Bottom line for your CNC situation: primary use = manufacturing = equipment classification. The occasional sales don't change that fundamental relationship. List as equipment and you're good to go.

0 coins

Perfect, that's the confirmation I needed. Going with equipment classification for the CNC machines. Thanks everyone for the help understanding Article 9 collateral types!

0 coins

Mateo Sanchez

•

Great discussion on the primary use test! One thing to add - when documenting your rationale for equipment classification, consider including a brief description in your security agreement about how the CNC machines are "used or bought for use primarily in business operations" rather than "held for sale or lease." This language mirrors the UCC definitions and can help support your classification decision if it's ever questioned. Also, for mixed-use assets like yours, some attorneys recommend including a clause that covers "all replacements, substitutions, and proceeds" to catch any scenario where equipment might temporarily shift categories.

0 coins

Jenna Sloan

•

This is really valuable advice about the documentation approach! I hadn't thought about explicitly using the UCC definitional language in the security agreement itself. The "replacements, substitutions, and proceeds" clause sounds like great protection too - would that cover scenarios where they trade in old CNC machines for newer models? Also, when you mention "if it's ever questioned," are you thinking more about disputes with other creditors or issues during enforcement proceedings?

0 coins

This has been such a valuable thread to follow as someone relatively new to secured lending! I've learned so much from everyone's practical experiences. One thing I'm curious about - for those of you who regularly use promissory notes as security agreements, do you have any standard language or clauses that you always include to make sure the security interest creation is ironclad? I'm thinking about developing a template approach based on all the great advice shared here, particularly the "grants a security interest" language and the "now owned or hereafter acquired, wherever located" collateral descriptions. Also, has anyone had experience with how courts actually interpret these combination documents when there are disputes? The theoretical UCC requirements are clear, but I'd love to hear about real-world enforcement if anyone has war stories to share.

0 coins

Lena Schultz

•

Great question about standard language! From my experience, I always include something like "Borrower hereby grants to Lender a first priority security interest in and lien upon all of Borrower's right, title and interest in and to the following collateral, whether now owned or hereafter acquired, wherever located..." This makes the granting language crystal clear and covers all the bases mentioned in this thread. As for enforcement, I've been fortunate not to face many disputes, but I did have one case where opposing counsel tried to argue that vague language in a note didn't create a proper security interest. Having that explicit "grants a security interest" language saved me - the court had no trouble finding a valid security agreement. The key is being absolutely unambiguous about your intent to create a security interest, not just describe collateral that backs the loan.

0 coins

Callum Savage

•

This discussion has been incredibly thorough and helpful! As someone who handles UCC filings regularly, I can confirm everything that's been said about promissory notes serving as security agreements. One additional tip I'd offer based on my experience: when you're using a promissory note as both instruments, consider adding a clause that explicitly states "This promissory note constitutes a security agreement under the Uniform Commercial Code." While not legally required, this belt-and-suspenders approach removes any possible ambiguity about your intent and makes it crystal clear to anyone reviewing the document later (including judges, opposing counsel, or bankruptcy trustees) that you intended to create both a debt obligation AND a security interest. I've found this simple addition can prevent disputes before they start. Also, regarding the Certana.ai tool that's been mentioned - I tried it recently on a multi-state equipment deal and was impressed with how it flagged potential issues with choice of law clauses and attachment requirements that I might have missed in manual review. For the cost, it's definitely worth using as a final check before executing important secured transactions.

0 coins

Cynthia Love

•

UPDATE: Just called Maine Secretary of State to confirm. Current fees are exactly what someone posted earlier - $25 for UCC-1, $20 for amendments, $25 for continuations. Rep was very helpful and confirmed these rates are current as of January 2025.

0 coins

Cynthia Love

•

Yeah the rep mentioned they haven't changed UCC fees in about 3 years. Pretty stable compared to some states.

0 coins

Darren Brooks

•

Thanks for sharing the update. Always good to have current confirmed info.

0 coins

Nia Jackson

•

Thanks everyone for the helpful responses! Based on the confirmed information from Cynthia's call to Maine SOS, I'll budget $25 for this UCC-1 filing. Really appreciate the community knowledge here - it's so much better than trying to navigate outdated fee schedules online. Will make sure to double-check the debtor name against their database before submitting too. This forum is invaluable for getting real-world filing experience from practitioners who deal with this stuff regularly.

0 coins

Diego Chavez

•

I've been through something similar with a business credit card UCC filing. One thing that really helped me was getting a UCC search report from the state to see the complete filing history - sometimes there are amendments or corrections that aren't obvious from the basic database search. Also, if you're under time pressure for the refinancing, consider asking your new lender if they'd accept a title insurance policy that covers the UCC lien risk while you're disputing it. Some lenders will close with that protection in place rather than waiting for a full resolution.

0 coins

Aisha Abdullah

•

That's really helpful advice about the UCC search report - I didn't know there could be amendments that don't show up in basic searches. The title insurance idea is brilliant too. Do you remember roughly how much that cost compared to just waiting for the lien resolution? My refinancing window is pretty tight and this could be a good backup option.

0 coins

Haley Bennett

•

The title insurance approach is really smart - I hadn't considered that option. From my experience dealing with UCC complications during refinancing, the insurance typically runs about 0.5-1% of the loan amount depending on the risk profile and lender requirements. It's usually much cheaper than the carrying costs of delaying your refinancing for months while fighting the UCC. Just make sure the title company is willing to insure against UCC defects specifically - not all policies cover filing irregularities or invalid security interests. You'll want to get quotes from a few different underwriters since their risk tolerance varies significantly on these issues.

0 coins

Ava Martinez

•

This is great information about the title insurance costs - 0.5-1% of loan amount is definitely manageable compared to delaying refinancing. I'm wondering though, if we go the title insurance route and later successfully challenge the UCC filing, does the insurance company typically pursue the credit card company for reimbursement? Or would we still be on the hook to resolve the underlying dispute even after closing? Also, has anyone had experience with specific title companies that are more experienced with UCC defect coverage? I'd hate to get halfway through underwriting only to find out they won't actually cover this type of issue.

0 coins

Prev1...5960616263...685Next