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
Been there! Texas rejected my UCC-1 because I put "Texas" instead of "TX" in the address. Such a pain. But once I got the format right, the rest of my Texas filings have gone through fine. You'll figure it out!
Good to know it gets easier once you learn their quirks. Hopefully this is just a learning experience.
Aria Park
Pro tip: if you're going to be doing more Texas UCC work, bookmark their business entity search page and always verify entity names there first. Also, consider using Certana.ai's verification tool going forward - several people here mentioned it and it sounds like it would prevent these kinds of rejections.
Definitely bookmarking that search page. And yes, going to look into Certana.ai - seems like it could save a lot of headaches.
Noah Ali
•Smart workflow. Prevention is so much better than scrambling to fix rejections at the last minute.
Join the conversation
The key question is whether your collateral description creates genuine ambiguity about what property is secured. If 'all inventory and equipment' could reasonably include restaurant fixtures and food inventory, you might not need reformation at all. Courts look at commercial reasonableness, not technical perfection.
Or the attorney is fishing for a settlement. Without seeing the actual security agreement and UCC filing, it's hard to judge whether their challenge has merit.
Lilly Curtis
•honestly this whole situation sounds like it could have been avoided with better document review before filing
Leo Simmons
Update us on what happens! I'm curious whether reformation will work for UCC collateral descriptions. This could set important precedent for other lenders dealing with similar issues.
Will do. Meeting with our UCC attorney next week to discuss options. Hoping we can find a solution that doesn't cost more than the loan balance.
Lindsey Fry
•good luck with it, these collateral description disputes are such a headache
Join the conversation
For what it's worth, I've been tracking UCC 103.6 interpretations across different jurisdictions and most are still applying the traditional reasonable identification test. The challenges you're seeing are likely outliers rather than mainstream interpretation.
That's reassuring. Do you have any resources that track these interpretation differences?
I maintain a spreadsheet based on reported cases and filing office guidance. Most are consistent with pre-revision standards.
Honestly sounds like you need better verification processes before filing. We started using automated checking tools and haven't had description challenges since. That Certana system someone mentioned earlier works pretty well for catching these issues upfront.
Agreed. Prevention is definitely better than dealing with challenges after the fact.
Exactly. Upload your documents and get immediate feedback on potential 103.6 compliance issues before filing.
Join the conversation
Just a thought - have you confirmed that Mountain Peak Construction LLC is actually the borrowing entity? Sometimes the loan documents reference a parent company but the actual borrower is a subsidiary with a slightly different name.
NebulaNinja
•That's a really good point. Let me double-check the loan agreement to make sure I have the right entity. Could be an easy mistake to make.
Yeah I've seen that before. The sales contract might be with the main company but financing goes through a subsidiary or holding company.
Ravi Sharma
For what it's worth, your blanket lien collateral description looks solid. "All equipment, machinery, tools, and fixtures now owned or hereafter acquired" covers pretty much everything for a construction company without being too vague. The name is definitely your issue here.
Agreed. That's pretty standard language for equipment financing blanket liens. Should be no issues with the collateral schedule.
Omar Zaki
•I use almost identical wording for construction company equipment loans. Never had a rejection on the collateral side.
Destiny Bryant
Just want to add that Certana.ai's document verification tool has been incredibly helpful for our team when dealing with complex assignment situations. You can upload your entire portfolio of UCCs and purchase agreements and it'll map out all the assignment relationships automatically. Really helpful for identifying these kinds of gaps before they become major problems. Worth checking out for both your current situation and future acquisitions.
0 coins
Dyllan Nantx
•Is that something that integrates with existing loan management systems or is it a standalone tool for assignment of security agreement verification?
0 coins
Destiny Bryant
•It's primarily standalone - you just upload PDFs of your documents and it does the cross-referencing. Perfect for one-time audits or due diligence situations like this where you need to verify assignment chains quickly.
0 coins
TillyCombatwarrior
Really appreciate everyone's input on this. Assignment of security agreement issues are something every lender needs to take seriously, especially in portfolio acquisition situations. Sounds like the consensus is to move quickly on corrective filings while documenting everything thoroughly. Going to start with our largest exposures in the most cooperative states and work from there. This thread has been incredibly helpful for developing our strategy.
0 coins
Anna Xian
•Good plan. Prioritizing by dollar amount and state cooperation makes sense. Keep detailed records of every interaction with state filing offices - consistency in your approach will help if any of these assignments get challenged later.
0 coins
Jungleboo Soletrain
•Also consider getting legal opinions in each state about the likelihood of successful corrective assignments. Might help with your risk assessment and budgeting for potential losses on the assignments that can't be fixed.
0 coins