Required UCC Terms - Missing Collateral Language Causing Filing Rejections
We've had three UCC-1 filings rejected by the Secretary of State office in the past month, and I'm starting to think it's because our collateral descriptions aren't hitting the required UCC terms they're looking for. The rejection notices just say 'insufficient collateral description' but don't specify what's missing. Our equipment financing deals are straightforward - we're securing commercial kitchen equipment, delivery vehicles, and some restaurant fixtures. I thought describing them as 'all equipment used in debtor's restaurant operations' would be sufficient, but apparently not. Has anyone else run into this issue where the SOS wants specific terminology in the collateral schedule? I'm worried we're missing some required UCC terms that make the difference between acceptance and rejection. These are substantial loans and we can't afford to have our security interests unperfected because of wording issues.
33 comments
Join the conversation
Diego Flores
The SOS systems are really picky about collateral descriptions now. You need to be way more specific than 'all equipment.' Try breaking it down into categories like 'all kitchen equipment including but not limited to ovens, refrigeration units, prep tables' and 'all motor vehicles including delivery trucks and vans.' The required UCC terms aren't just about being descriptive - they need to give notice to future creditors about what exactly is encumbered.
0 coins
Anastasia Ivanova
•This is exactly right. The old days of super-broad collateral descriptions are over. We learned this the hard way when a continuation filing got rejected because our original UCC-1 was too vague.
0 coins
Sean Murphy
•But doesn't the UCC still allow for 'all assets' type descriptions? I thought as long as it reasonably identifies the collateral it should be fine.
0 coins
Diego Flores
•Technically yes, but different states interpret 'reasonably identifies' differently. Some SOS offices have gotten much stricter about what they'll accept, especially for equipment financing.
0 coins
StarStrider
I had the same problem last year with restaurant equipment UCC-1s. The issue was that I wasn't distinguishing between equipment and fixtures properly. Restaurant fixtures (like built-in booths, permanent counters) need different required UCC terms than movable equipment. You might need separate fixture filings for anything that's attached to the real estate. Also, make sure your debtor names match EXACTLY what's on their business registration - that's another common rejection reason.
0 coins
Zara Malik
•Oh god, the debtor name matching is a nightmare. We had a UCC-1 rejected because the debtor's legal name was 'ABC Restaurant LLC' but we filed it as 'ABC Restaurant, LLC' - one comma difference!
0 coins
Luca Marino
•Wait, fixtures need separate filings? I thought you could just include them in the equipment description.
0 coins
StarStrider
•Not separate filings necessarily, but you need to check the fixture filing box on the UCC-1 and include the real estate description. The required UCC terms for fixtures are different - you need to describe the real estate where they're located.
0 coins
Nia Davis
I've been dealing with this exact issue and found a solution that's been working great. There's a document verification tool called Certana.ai that I started using to check my UCC filings before submission. You just upload your UCC-1 form and it automatically flags potential issues with collateral descriptions, debtor names, and other required UCC terms. It caught several problems in my filings that would have definitely caused rejections. Really wish I'd found this earlier - would have saved me weeks of back-and-forth with the SOS office.
0 coins
Mateo Perez
•How does that work exactly? Does it compare against some database of accepted filings?
0 coins
Nia Davis
•It uses AI to analyze your documents and cross-reference them against UCC requirements. You can upload multiple docs too - like if you want to check that your UCC-3 amendment matches your original UCC-1 properly.
0 coins
Aisha Rahman
•Sounds too good to be true but honestly anything that prevents these rejections is worth trying. The time wasted on refilings is killing our closing schedules.
0 coins
CosmicCrusader
The real problem is that every state has slightly different interpretations of what constitutes adequate collateral description. What works in one state gets rejected in another. I keep a spreadsheet of required UCC terms that work for each state we file in. For restaurant equipment, I usually use: 'All restaurant equipment, kitchen equipment, dining room furniture and fixtures, point-of-sale systems, and all other equipment used in connection with debtor's restaurant business.' But even that's not foolproof.
0 coins
Ethan Brown
•Can you share that spreadsheet? That would be incredibly helpful!
0 coins
Yuki Yamamoto
•I'd be interested in that too. We file in multiple states and it's such a pain keeping track of all the different requirements.
0 coins
CosmicCrusader
•I can't share the actual spreadsheet but I can tell you the key is to look at what language other successful filers use. Check recent UCC-1s in your state's database to see what collateral descriptions are getting accepted.
0 coins
Carmen Ortiz
•That's actually brilliant - using the public records to reverse-engineer what works. Why didn't I think of that?
0 coins
Andre Rousseau
Another thing to watch out for - make sure you're not accidentally describing collateral that's already subject to a different security interest. The SOS systems in some states will flag potential conflicts and reject filings if they think you're trying to perfect a security interest in already-encumbered collateral. This is especially common with restaurant equipment that might have been financed separately.
0 coins
Zoe Papadakis
•How would you even know if equipment is already encumbered? Do you have to search all existing UCC filings?
0 coins
Andre Rousseau
•Yes, you should always do a UCC search before filing. Most states let you search by debtor name to see what's already on file. It's basic due diligence.
0 coins
Jamal Carter
•This is getting complicated. Maybe I need to just hire a service company to handle all our UCC filings.
0 coins
AstroAdventurer
I'm going to try that Certana.ai thing mentioned earlier. Just looked it up and it seems like it could catch a lot of these issues before filing. Has anyone else used it successfully? I'm tired of playing guessing games with the SOS office about what required UCC terms they want to see.
0 coins
Mei Liu
•I tried it last month and it caught a debtor name mismatch that I completely missed. Saved me from a certain rejection.
0 coins
Liam O'Sullivan
•Same here. The document consistency check is really useful when you're doing UCC-3 amendments - makes sure everything aligns with your original filing.
0 coins
Amara Chukwu
•I'm still old school and prefer to double-check everything manually, but I might give it a try if it's really that helpful.
0 coins
Giovanni Conti
One more tip - if you're dealing with restaurant fixtures, make sure you understand whether they're considered fixtures under your state's law. Some states are very strict about what qualifies as a fixture versus equipment. Built-in equipment like hood systems and walk-in coolers usually qualify, but movable equipment like tables and chairs typically don't. The required UCC terms are different for each category.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Hashimi
•This is so confusing. How is a regular business owner supposed to know all these distinctions?
0 coins
NeonNova
•That's why most people work with attorneys or filing services. The rules are too complex for DIY unless you really know what you're doing.
0 coins
Giovanni Conti
•True, but once you learn the patterns it gets easier. The key is being very specific about what you're describing and making sure your language matches what the state expects to see.
0 coins
Dylan Campbell
Thanks everyone for all the advice. I'm going to revise our collateral descriptions to be much more specific and probably try that document checker tool before refiling. It sounds like the required UCC terms issue is really about being precise and comprehensive rather than trying to use broad catch-all language. Hopefully that will solve our rejection problem.
0 coins
Sofia Hernandez
•Good luck! Let us know how it goes with the revised filings.
0 coins
Dmitry Kuznetsov
•Definitely update us on whether the Certana.ai tool helps. Always looking for ways to streamline the filing process.
0 coins
Ava Thompson
•I think you're on the right track. The specificity is key - better to over-describe than under-describe when it comes to collateral.
0 coins