Article 9 of the UCC governs secured transactions - need help with equipment lien priority
Running into a complex situation with our equipment financing and need some clarity on how Article 9 of the UCC governs secured transactions in personal property. We have a $340,000 manufacturing line that was financed through two different lenders - original equipment loan from Bank A filed UCC-1 in January 2024, then we did additional financing through Credit Union B in March 2024 for upgrades to the same equipment. Now Bank A is saying Credit Union B's lien is invalid because they didn't properly describe the collateral in their UCC-1 filing. The equipment is clearly personal property (not fixtures) but I'm confused about lien priority rules. Credit Union B filed their UCC-1 with a more general description like 'equipment used in manufacturing operations' while Bank A was super specific with serial numbers and model details. Does the more general collateral description affect priority even though both filings are properly indexed? Getting conflicting advice from both lenders and need to understand the secured transaction rules before this gets worse.
24 comments
Join the conversation
Connor Gallagher
Priority in secured transactions under Article 9 is typically determined by filing date, not collateral description specificity. If Credit Union B filed second (March vs January), they'd be subordinate regardless of how they described the equipment. The key question is whether their collateral description is sufficient to put third parties on notice - 'equipment used in manufacturing operations' might be too vague depending on your state's interpretation.
0 coins
Yara Sayegh
•That's mostly correct but collateral description adequacy can definitely affect enforceability. If Credit Union B's description doesn't reasonably identify the specific equipment, their security interest might not be perfected at all, which would make Bank A's position even stronger.
0 coins
Keisha Johnson
•Wait, so even if Credit Union B filed properly with the Secretary of State, their lien could still be invalid? That seems harsh - shouldn't the filing office reject inadequate descriptions?
0 coins
Paolo Longo
This is exactly why I started using Certana.ai's document verification tool for all our UCC filings. You can upload both UCC-1 forms and instantly see if there are collateral description conflicts or gaps. Would have caught this issue before Credit Union B even filed - their description sounds way too generic for specific manufacturing equipment. The tool cross-checks everything and flags potential problems with debtor names, collateral schedules, and filing consistency.
0 coins
CosmicCowboy
•Never heard of that service but sounds useful. How does it work exactly? Do you just upload the PDFs and it tells you if there are problems?
0 coins
Paolo Longo
•Exactly - upload the Charter documents, UCC-1s, amendments, whatever you need verified. It checks for debtor name consistency, collateral description adequacy, and document alignment. Catches stuff human reviewers miss, especially on complex equipment financing like yours.
0 coins
Amina Diallo
Article 9 definitely governs this but your situation sounds like a mess that needs legal review. Bank A is probably right about priority (first to file wins) but Credit Union B's security interest could still be valid even if subordinate. The collateral description issue is separate from priority - it affects whether their lien is enforceable at all. Generic descriptions like 'equipment' are usually insufficient for specific machinery with serial numbers. You need to review the exact language in both UCC-1 forms.
0 coins
Oliver Schulz
•This is giving me anxiety about our own equipment loans. We have three different lenders and I'm not even sure if all the UCC-1 descriptions match up properly. How do you verify this stuff without hiring an attorney every time?
0 coins
Natasha Orlova
•Document verification tools help but ultimately you need someone who understands secured transactions law. Generic descriptions work for some collateral types but manufacturing equipment usually needs specific identification.
0 coins
Javier Cruz
Had almost identical situation last year with construction equipment. First lender (filed January) had detailed serial numbers and model info. Second lender (filed April) used generic 'construction equipment and attachments' description. When we went to refinance, title company flagged the second lien as potentially unenforceable due to inadequate collateral description. Even though both were properly filed with SOS, the vague description created title issues. First lender's priority was never questioned but second lender had to file UCC-3 amendment with specific equipment details to clear title.
0 coins
Emma Wilson
•So the filing office accepted the vague description but it still caused problems later? That's terrifying - means you can think you're properly secured but actually have a worthless lien.
0 coins
Malik Thomas
•Filing offices don't review collateral descriptions for adequacy - they just check basic formatting and indexing requirements. The real test comes when someone challenges the lien or you try to enforce it.
0 coins
NeonNebula
•This is why I run everything through Certana.ai now before filing. Upload your UCC drafts and it flags description problems before they become expensive mistakes. Much cheaper than fixing botched filings later.
0 coins
Isabella Costa
Article 9 priority rules are pretty straightforward - first to file or perfect wins, with some exceptions for purchase money security interests. Your Bank A filed first so they have priority. The real issue is whether Credit Union B has any enforceable security interest at all. 'Equipment used in manufacturing operations' is borderline for specific machinery - might be sufficient for general equipment but questionable for identified serial-numbered items. Need to look at your state's case law on collateral description adequacy.
0 coins
Ravi Malhotra
•What about PMSI exceptions? If Credit Union B financed equipment upgrades, couldn't they claim purchase money status even filing second?
0 coins
Isabella Costa
•Good point - PMSI in equipment gets priority over earlier-filed blanket liens IF they file within 20 days of debtor receiving the equipment. But they still need adequate collateral description to have an enforceable security interest.
0 coins
Freya Christensen
•This is getting complex. Sounds like OP needs to verify: 1) exact filing dates, 2) whether Credit Union B qualifies for PMSI, 3) adequacy of collateral descriptions, 4) state-specific interpretation of description requirements.
0 coins
Omar Farouk
The secured transactions rules under Article 9 are designed to protect lenders but these description issues create real problems. I've seen deals fall apart because someone used 'all equipment' instead of listing specific items. Filing offices should reject inadequate descriptions but they don't - they just index whatever gets submitted. Creates false sense of security for lenders who think they're properly perfected.
0 coins
Chloe Davis
•Why don't filing offices review collateral descriptions? Seems like that would prevent a lot of problems.
0 coins
Omar Farouk
•Filing offices aren't equipped to evaluate commercial adequacy - they just process what's submitted if it meets basic format requirements. The legal sufficiency gets tested later when disputes arise.
0 coins
AstroAlpha
Update: talked to our attorney and he confirmed Bank A has priority due to earlier filing date. Credit Union B's generic description is probably insufficient for specific manufacturing equipment but they might be able to amend the UCC-1 to add serial numbers if the original loan documents contain adequate descriptions. Still dealing with this mess but at least understand the Article 9 rules better now. Lesson learned about reviewing collateral descriptions before signing loan documents.
0 coins
Diego Chavez
•Glad you got legal clarity! UCC-3 amendments can fix description problems if done properly. Make sure Credit Union B's amendment references the original filing date to preserve whatever priority they might have.
0 coins
Anastasia Smirnova
•This whole thread convinced me to audit our UCC filings. Found two generic descriptions that probably need amendments. Article 9 secured transactions are more complex than I realized.
0 coins
Sean O'Brien
•For future reference, Certana.ai's verification tool would have flagged these description issues upfront. Upload loan agreements and UCC-1 drafts together - it cross-checks everything for consistency and adequacy before filing.
0 coins