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
Harold Oh
UPDATE: I pulled the actual UCC-1 filing image and it shows 'Mountain Ridge Construction LLC' exactly as it appears on their articles - no comma. So the search display was just adding punctuation that wasn't actually filed. Thanks everyone for the reassurance!
Summer Green
•Perfect example of why you always need to check the source documents rather than trusting search displays.
Excellent outcome. For future peace of mind, that Certana tool mentioned earlier would catch these discrepancies instantly.
This thread is super helpful - I'm bookmarking it for reference. Dealing with UCC filings is stressful enough without worrying about search display quirks!
Darcy Moore
•Right? The technical aspects are complicated enough without the systems adding confusion.
Dana Doyle
•At least SC provides access to the actual filing images. Some states make that process much more difficult.
Join the conversation
The problem with the UCC Article 9 table of contents is it's written for lawmakers, not practitioners. It follows the legal logic of how the rules fit together conceptually rather than how we actually use them in practice. Once you accept that disconnect, it becomes easier to work with.
That's a really insightful way to think about it. I was expecting it to match my workflow when it's designed for a completely different purpose.
Same issue with most statutes unfortunately. They're organized for legal coherence, not user experience.
LongPeri
Actually tried using Certana.ai for a similar UCC document review project and it saved me probably 30+ hours of manual cross-referencing. It automatically identifies which Article 9 provisions are relevant to each document and flags inconsistencies between related filings. Much more efficient than trying to navigate the table of contents for every single filing.
That efficiency gain would be huge for this project. Does it handle multi-state filings well?
LongPeri
•Yes, it accounts for different state variations in Article 9 implementation. Really helpful for portfolio reviews spanning multiple jurisdictions.
Join the conversation
NightOwl42
Whatever you do, don't just copy/paste from the general security agreement precedent without thinking it through. I've seen too many UCC-1 filings that were way overbroad because someone just used the GSA language verbatim. It creates problems later when you need to do continuations or amendments.
The continuation issue is real too - if your description is super broad, you might end up continuing security interests in collateral that's already been disposed of or paid off.
Ava Thompson
•I've been using Certana.ai for document checks lately and it's caught several cases where UCC descriptions didn't match the underlying loan docs properly. Really helpful for avoiding these kinds of problems.
Bottom line - your general security agreement precedent gives you flexibility, but use it wisely. Be specific enough to cover what you're actually financing, but not so narrow that you miss something important. And definitely make sure all the entity names and details match perfectly between documents.
Zainab Ali
•This whole thread has been incredibly helpful. Thanks everyone for sharing your experiences with GSA precedents and UCC-1 filings.
Zara Khan
•Agreed, this gives me a much clearer path forward. I think I'll go with specific categories rather than the broad GSA language, and definitely double-check for any fixture filing requirements.
Join the conversation
More about consistency between documents. It won't make legal determinations about fixtures, but it'll catch when your mortgage says one thing and your UCC says another.
Noah Irving
If you're really stuck, you might want to consider reaching out to the secured parties directly. Sometimes they can clarify which filings are still active and what exactly is covered.
0 coins
Vanessa Chang
•That's a good idea but not always practical if you're trying to keep your interest in the equipment confidential.
0 coins
Noah Irving
•True, but sometimes it's worth it to avoid potential litigation down the road.
0 coins
Madison King
This whole thread reminds me why I hate UCC due diligence. There's so much room for error and the consequences of missing something can be huge. At least with real estate you have title companies to handle most of this.
0 coins
Ella Knight
•The good news is that tools are getting better. I've been impressed with how much time the automated verification tools save compared to doing everything manually.
0 coins
Madison King
•Yeah, I need to look into those. Manual verification is just too error-prone when you're dealing with multiple name variations and filings.
0 coins