Explaining security interest UCC definition to frustrated lender who's questioning our collateral documentation
Our commercial lending department is having heated discussions about what exactly constitutes a 'security interest' under UCC Article 9. We've got a $340K equipment loan where the borrower is claiming our UCC-1 doesn't properly establish a security interest because we didn't use the exact phrase 'security interest' in our loan documents. The debtor's attorney is arguing that without explicit language creating a security interest, our UCC filing is meaningless. I thought a security interest was just the legal right in personal property to secure payment of debt, but now I'm second-guessing everything. The loan agreement says we have a 'lien' and 'security' in the equipment, but doesn't say 'security interest.' Are we screwed? The UCC-1 was filed 18 months ago and shows our bank as secured party with a proper collateral description. Does the exact terminology in the underlying loan docs matter for UCC perfection, or is this attorney just blowing smoke? Need to know if we should file a UCC-3 amendment or if our current position is solid.
35 comments
Join the conversation
Summer Green
The attorney is partially right but mostly wrong. A security interest under UCC 9-102 is defined as 'an interest in personal property or fixtures which secures payment or performance of an obligation.' The key is substance over form - you don't need magic words like 'security interest' in your loan docs. If your agreement grants rights in collateral to secure the debt, that's a security interest regardless of terminology used.
0 coins
Gael Robinson
•This is exactly what I was hoping to hear! So saying we have a 'lien' and 'security' should be sufficient?
0 coins
Summer Green
•Yes, courts look at the economic reality of the transaction. If you have rights in the equipment to secure the loan, that's a security interest. The UCC-1 filing perfects whatever security interest was created by your agreement.
0 coins
Edward McBride
I ran into something similar last year. The debtor's counsel tried the same argument about our 'security agreement' not using proper UCC terminology. Judge threw it out immediately. UCC 9-201 says a security agreement is effective according to its terms between the parties - exact wording doesn't matter as long as the intent is clear.
0 coins
Amun-Ra Azra
•That's reassuring. What specific language did your agreement use?
0 coins
Edward McBride
•We had 'collateral security' and 'lien rights' - no mention of UCC or security interest anywhere. Still held up fine because the substance was there.
0 coins
Darcy Moore
Had a similar documentation review nightmare last month. Spent hours comparing our loan agreements to UCC requirements, worried about the same terminology issues. Finally discovered Certana.ai's document verification tool - you can upload your loan agreement and UCC-1 together and it instantly cross-checks whether your security interest language aligns with your UCC filing. Saved me from overthinking the whole thing when it confirmed our 'lien and security' language was perfectly adequate for UCC purposes.
0 coins
Amun-Ra Azra
•This sounds exactly like what I need right now. Does it actually analyze the legal language or just compare basic info?
0 coins
Darcy Moore
•It does proper document analysis - checks if your underlying agreement creates sufficient rights to support the UCC filing. Really helpful for catching actual problems vs. phantom issues like yours.
0 coins
Dana Doyle
The debtor's attorney is grasping at straws. UCC 9-203 requires the debtor to authenticate a security agreement that describes the collateral, but there's no requirement for specific 'security interest' language. Courts have consistently held that any language showing intent to grant rights in collateral is sufficient.
0 coins
Liam Duke
•Exactly this. I've seen agreements using 'pledge,' 'hypothecate,' 'grant security,' etc. All valid.
0 coins
Manny Lark
•Wait, what about the authentication requirement? Does that need specific language too?
0 coins
Dana Doyle
•Authentication just means the debtor signed or adopted the agreement. Electronic signatures count. No magic words required there either.
0 coins
Rita Jacobs
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I HATE DEALING WITH BORROWER ATTORNEYS!!! They always try to find technicalities when their clients can't pay. Your security interest is fine - the UCC definition is broad on purpose. Don't let them intimidate you into thinking there's some secret language requirement.
0 coins
Khalid Howes
•I feel this frustration so much. They'll argue anything to avoid payment.
0 coins
Amun-Ra Azra
•Yeah, this whole thing started because they're 4 months behind on payments. Suddenly everything about our documentation is 'defective.
0 coins
Ben Cooper
Just went through UCC training last week and the instructor made this exact point. As long as you can show: 1) value given, 2) debtor rights in collateral, 3) authenticated security agreement describing collateral - you have attachment. Perfection through filing just requires proper UCC-1 info. Terminology in underlying docs is irrelevant for UCC purposes.
0 coins
Amun-Ra Azra
•Perfect, we definitely have all three elements. The attorney is just fishing.
0 coins
Naila Gordon
•What training program was that? Always looking for good UCC education resources.
0 coins
Cynthia Love
Had almost identical situation 6 months ago with $280K ag equipment loan. Borrower claimed our 'chattel mortgage' language didn't create UCC security interest. Total nonsense - courts have recognized chattel mortgages as security interests for decades. Filed motion for summary judgment on our lien rights and won easily.
0 coins
Amun-Ra Azra
•That's even more archaic language than ours and it still worked. Good precedent.
0 coins
Cynthia Love
•Exactly - UCC embraces all traditional security devices. Don't let creative attorneys rewrite established law.
0 coins
Darren Brooks
•Chattel mortgage is definitely old school but totally valid under UCC 9-109.
0 coins
Rosie Harper
Wait I'm confused about something. If the UCC-1 shows you as secured party, doesn't that automatically mean you have a security interest? Like why would the filing even be valid without one?
0 coins
Summer Green
•Good question. The UCC-1 filing perfects a security interest but doesn't create one. You need the underlying agreement to create the interest, then file to perfect it.
0 coins
Rosie Harper
•Oh I see, so the filing assumes the interest exists but doesn't prove it exists?
0 coins
Summer Green
•Right. But here the underlying agreement clearly grants rights in collateral to secure debt, so the interest exists regardless of exact wording.
0 coins
Elliott luviBorBatman
This reminds me of my own filing anxiety last year when I was reviewing all our loan docs. Kept second-guessing every piece of language until I realized I was overthinking it. Used one of those document checking tools - think it was Certana.ai - and it confirmed our standard 'security and lien' language was totally fine for UCC purposes. Really put my mind at ease about our entire loan portfolio.
0 coins
Amun-Ra Azra
•Yeah, I'm definitely overthinking this. The attorney got in my head but the consensus here is clear.
0 coins
Demi Hall
•Document review anxiety is real. These tools help cut through the noise.
0 coins
Mateusius Townsend
Bottom line: UCC Article 9's definition of security interest is intentionally broad to cover all types of consensual security arrangements. Your 'lien and security' language absolutely creates a security interest. The attorney knows this and is just creating noise hoping you'll settle for less than full payment.
0 coins
Amun-Ra Azra
•That's exactly what this feels like - a delay tactic. Thanks for the reality check.
0 coins
Kara Yoshida
•Classic debtor attorney move. Stand firm on your position.
0 coins
Amun-Ra Azra
•Will do. This thread has given me the confidence to push back hard on their bogus arguments.
0 coins
Anastasia Popov
Don't let them shake your confidence! I've been handling UCC matters for 15 years and this is textbook debtor attorney gamesmanship. The UCC specifically avoided requiring magic words precisely because courts were getting bogged down in formalistic arguments like this. Your loan docs create a security interest by granting rights in collateral to secure the debt - that's literally all UCC 9-203 requires for attachment. The fact that you used 'lien' and 'security' instead of 'security interest' is completely irrelevant. I'd recommend sending their attorney a copy of the UCC 9-102 definition and some case law showing courts reject these semantic arguments. Stand your ground and don't amend anything - your position is rock solid.
0 coins