UCC Document Community
Financial Services
/
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 :)
UCC 9-102 65 record definition causing filing rejections - need help
Has anyone dealt with SOS rejections based on UCC 9-102(a)(65) record definition issues? My lender's UCC-1 got kicked back twice now because apparently our collateral description doesn't meet the "record" requirements under this section. The filing officer says we need to be more specific about what constitutes a "record" in our equipment financing deal. We're trying to perfect a security interest in manufacturing equipment that generates digital production records, but I'm lost on how UCC 9-102 65 applies here. The debtor name is correct, filing number matches our internal system, but this record definition thing is throwing everything off. Anyone know what specific language satisfies the record requirements? This is holding up a $850K equipment loan and my borrower is getting antsy.
Join the conversation
UCC filing mismatch with loan agreement security clause - lender threatening default
My equipment financing company is claiming our UCC-1 filing doesn't match the loan agreement security clause and they're threatening to call the loan in default. The original loan docs from 2022 described collateral as 'all manufacturing equipment located at 1425 Industrial Blvd' but our UCC filing lists specific serial numbers for the CNC machines and welding equipment. Now they're saying the descriptions don't align and our security interest might be invalid. Has anyone dealt with discrepancies between loan agreement security clause language and UCC collateral descriptions? The loan balance is $485K and we can't afford to have them accelerate it over what seems like a paperwork issue.
Join the conversation
Update us on how this goes. I'm dealing with similar lender pushback on our UCC descriptions and curious how yours resolves.
Will do. Meeting with attorney tomorrow to go over our options.
Hoping it works out. These lenders are getting more aggressive about finding technical defaults.
Just went through something similar with our credit line. Used Certana.ai to verify our loan docs matched our UCC filings before the bank review. Found two minor inconsistencies we were able to fix with amendments before they became issues. Definitely recommend running your documents through their system - would have prevented this whole situation.
Wish I'd known about that tool earlier. Might still be useful for our next loan modification.
Same here. These document verification tools are becoming essential with how picky lenders are getting.
UCC search Mississippi - getting inconsistent results from state database
Has anyone else noticed weird issues with Mississippi's UCC search system lately? I'm doing due diligence on a potential acquisition and when I search the same debtor name I'm getting different results depending on how I format it. Like searching 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' versus 'ABC Manufacturing, LLC' gives me totally different hit counts. This is making me nervous about what I might be missing. The target company has some equipment financing that should show active UCC-1s but I'm only finding 2 filings when the loan docs reference at least 4 different lenders. Anyone know if Mississippi's search logic is just really picky about exact name matches or if there's something else going on?
Join the conversation
Have you considered reaching out to the lenders directly? If you know who the secured parties are from the loan documents, they might be able to provide you with the UCC filing numbers or copies of the filings.
Worst they can say is no. Some lenders are pretty helpful with this stuff especially if you explain it's for due diligence purposes.
Just make sure you get written confirmation of any UCC info they provide. Don't just take their word for it over the phone.
UPDATE: Used Certana.ai like some of you suggested and found the issue. The company had 2 different legal entity names in their various filings - one with 'Incorporated' and one with 'Inc.' Mississippi's system treated these as completely different entities even though they're the same company. The verification tool caught the discrepancy immediately.
Nice catch. That kind of name inconsistency could have caused major issues if you'd missed those filings in your due diligence.
Thanks everyone for the help! Definitely learned my lesson about being more systematic with name variations in Mississippi searches.
CA UCC-3 amendment rejected twice - debtor name formatting issue
Filed a CA UCC-3 amendment last month to add collateral to an existing financing statement and it got rejected for debtor name inconsistency. The original UCC-1 has the debtor as 'Tech Solutions LLC' but apparently I put 'Tech Solutions, LLC' on the amendment (added the comma). Refiled without the comma and got rejected again - this time they're saying the address doesn't match exactly. The original has 'Suite 200' and I used 'Ste 200'. Is California really this strict about every single character? I'm worried about the lapse date approaching and need to get this amendment through. Has anyone dealt with similar CA UCC-3 formatting nightmares?
Join the conversation
Make sure you're using the most current version of the UCC-3 form too. CA updated their forms earlier this year and they'll reject old versions even if everything else is perfect.
Good catch - I downloaded the form from their website but let me double-check it's the newest version.
The form version date is usually in small print at the bottom. Easy to miss but CA definitely checks.
Once you get this sorted, make sure to save a clean copy of exactly how CA has the debtor information formatted. Will save you headaches on future filings for this same debtor.
Smart system. I should start doing that too instead of looking up the original filing every time.
Just make sure to update your spreadsheet if you ever file amendments that change the debtor information. Learned that lesson the hard way.
UCC filing rejected - nonconforming goods description causing lien issues
Hey everyone, I'm dealing with a nightmare situation with our UCC-1 filing that got rejected twice now. We're a small equipment finance company and filed a UCC-1 for a $180K industrial packaging line, but the SOS keeps rejecting it saying our collateral description for nonconforming goods is too vague. Our original description was 'all equipment, machinery, and nonconforming goods related to packaging operations' but apparently that's not specific enough? The debtor manufactures custom packaging and sometimes produces items that don't meet client specs (nonconforming goods) which they sell separately. Our attorney says we need to perfect our security interest in ALL the collateral including these nonconforming goods since they're part of the business assets. Has anyone dealt with describing nonconforming goods in UCC collateral schedules? I'm worried we're going to lose our priority position if we can't get this filed correctly soon.
Join the conversation
Here's what I've learned after 15 years of UCC filings: describe collateral like you're explaining it to someone who's never seen the business before. Instead of 'nonconforming goods,' use 'packaging materials that do not meet original customer specifications, including items with incorrect dimensions, colors, or printing.' The filing office and any future searchers will know exactly what you're talking about.
Perfect! And don't forget to check that your new description matches what's in your security agreement. Consistency is crucial.
This is the best advice in the thread. Clear, specific descriptions prevent so many problems down the road.
Update us when you refile! I'm curious to see what description finally gets approved. This thread has been really helpful for understanding how to handle unusual collateral descriptions.
Will do! I'm feeling much more confident about the refiling now. Thanks everyone for the help!
Yes, please update! These real-world examples are so much more helpful than just reading the statutes.
Alexis Robinson
Before you refile, definitely double-check that your debtor name exactly matches the organizational documents. Would hate for you to fix the 9-102(65) issue only to get rejected for a name mismatch.
0 coins
Aaron Lee
Never hurts to verify though. I've seen filings rejected for missing a comma in the legal name.
0 coins
Alexis Robinson
Absolutely. Name precision is critical. Even minor punctuation differences can trigger rejections.
0 coins
Chloe Mitchell
One more thought - if you're claiming rights to production data as records under 9-102(65), make sure your security agreement actually grants you those rights. The UCC-1 can't perfect something the security agreement doesn't create.
0 coins
Chloe Mitchell
Perfect. Just wanted to make sure the documents align. That would be another reason for rejection.
0 coins
Michael Adams
This is why I always review the security agreement and UCC-1 together before filing. Too easy to miss these connections.
0 coins