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 :)

Adrian Connor

•

Another thing to consider is your collateral descriptions. Make sure the language in your security agreement matches what you put in the UCC filings. I've seen deals where inconsistent descriptions caused problems during enforcement.

0 coins

Finnegan Gunn

•

Yeah, that's exactly why I started using Certana.ai. It catches those description inconsistencies automatically when you upload the documents.

0 coins

I'm definitely going to check that out. Sounds like it could save a lot of review time and catch mistakes I might miss.

0 coins

Brooklyn Knight

•

Thank you all for this incredibly helpful discussion! As someone new to commercial lending, I was feeling overwhelmed by the UCC vs mortgage requirements, but reading through everyone's experiences has really clarified things for me. The consensus seems to be: when in doubt, file UCC-1 statements for personal property and UCC fixture filings for anything that could be considered removable. I appreciate the practical advice about creating detailed collateral categorization lists and filing well before closing. The horror stories about losing priority due to missed filings are exactly the wake-up call I needed. I'm definitely going to adopt the "over-file rather than under-file" approach and will look into some of the document verification tools mentioned here to avoid description inconsistencies. This community is such a valuable resource for navigating these complex situations!

0 coins

Emma Olsen

•

One more thing - make sure your collateral description hasn't changed either. If you've added equipment since 2020 you might need to amend that too, not just the debtor name.

0 coins

Emma Olsen

•

Should be fine then, but double-check the original UCC-1 language to be sure. 'All equipment' is pretty broad.

0 coins

Lucas Lindsey

•

Yeah as long as it says 'all equipment' or 'equipment now owned or hereafter acquired' you should be covered for new additions.

0 coins

Isaiah Cross

•

Had a similar situation in Tennessee a few months back. One thing that might help - when you pull that certificate of existence, also check if your registered agent info matches exactly on both the UCC-1 and your current corporate records. Tennessee sometimes flags mismatches there too, even if it's not obvious. Also, if you're working with a tight timeline and want to be extra careful, consider doing the amendment via their expedited processing for an extra fee. It's like $25 more but cuts the processing time in half. Better safe than sorry when you've got $480k in collateral on the line.

0 coins

Just went through something similar with construction equipment. Key is documenting that the sale wasn't part of the debtor's ordinary business operations. Court records, business licenses, tax returns showing what they actually do vs. what they sold can all be helpful evidence.

0 coins

Exactly. The more you can document their actual business operations, the stronger your case that this wasn't ordinary course.

0 coins

Michael Green

•

Business registration documents are usually pretty clear about what kind of business they're licensed for too.

0 coins

Luca Romano

•

Thanks everyone for the helpful analysis! Based on the discussion, it sounds like we have a strong position since our debtor is clearly a manufacturer selling production equipment rather than being in the equipment sales business. I'll gather documentation showing their actual business operations and licensing to support that this wasn't an ordinary course sale. Really appreciate the insights on how 9-320(a) works - the ordinary course test is more straightforward than I initially thought once you focus on what business the seller is actually in rather than the buyer's knowledge.

0 coins

Great summary! Just to add one more practical tip - when you're gathering that documentation to prove it wasn't ordinary course, also look at the debtor's historical sales patterns. If they've never sold equipment before or only do so very rarely (like when replacing old equipment), that strengthens your position even more. The frequency of similar sales can be really persuasive evidence in court.

0 coins

Dylan Wright

•

Last resort would be to have your lender provide you with the filing number directly. They should have that information in their loan file and then you can search by the specific UCC number instead of names.

0 coins

Aisha Ali

•

Yeah if all else fails I'll have to contact them directly. Just wanted to try finding it myself first since they're not always the most responsive.

0 coins

NebulaKnight

•

Most lenders are required to provide that info to borrowers anyway, so don't feel bad about asking for it.

0 coins

Zoe Kyriakidou

•

Another thing to check - make sure you're searching in the correct UCC database. Some states have separate databases for different types of filings or different time periods. Also, if your business has multiple locations or subsidiaries, the lender might have filed under a parent company name or with a different address than you expect. I'd recommend creating a list of every possible name variation (legal name, DBA, abbreviated versions, with/without punctuation) and systematically searching each one in both your state and any states where you have equipment or operations.

0 coins

GalaxyGlider

•

Bottom line: UCC 1-308 might preserve some rights in very specific circumstances, but it's not a magic shield against secured creditor remedies. If you're concerned about your rights in a secured transaction, focus on the security agreement terms, the accuracy of UCC filings, and compliance with notification requirements. Those are the areas where you can actually protect yourself.

0 coins

GalaxyGlider

•

Exactly right. Commercial law rewards careful preparation and accurate documentation, not clever reservation clauses.

0 coins

Mei Wong

•

I learned this the hard way. Spent more time researching UCC 1-308 than actually reviewing my loan terms. The reservation clause didn't help when my lender exercised their security interest, but understanding my agreement beforehand might have.

0 coins

As someone who's worked in commercial finance for over a decade, I can tell you that UCC 1-308 reservations are largely ineffective in secured transactions for a fundamental reason: they don't address the core mechanics of how security interests work. When a creditor files a UCC-1, they're creating a public notice of their claim against specific collateral. Your reservation of rights doesn't change the priority rules, doesn't affect perfection, and doesn't alter the creditor's remedies under Article 9. The real protection comes from understanding your security agreement's default provisions, cure periods, and notice requirements. I've seen borrowers spend countless hours on UCC 1-308 research when they should have been negotiating better loan terms or ensuring their UCC filings were accurate. Focus your energy on the substance of your agreements rather than procedural reservation clauses that courts routinely find inapplicable to voluntary commercial transactions.

0 coins

Salim Nasir

•

This is exactly the kind of practical insight I was hoping for. As someone new to secured transactions, I've been seeing UCC 1-308 mentioned in various online forums and was curious if it had real applications. Your explanation about how security interests actually function - through priority rules, perfection, and Article 9 remedies - makes it clear why a general reservation clause wouldn't impact those mechanisms. I appreciate you emphasizing the importance of focusing on substantive agreement terms and filing accuracy rather than getting distracted by procedural workarounds that don't address the core legal framework.

0 coins

Prev1...7677787980...684Next