Security agreement law confusion - UCC-1 filing rejected over collateral description mismatch

Ugh this exact thing happened to me last year! The collateral description on your UCC-1 has to reasonably describe what's in your security agreement. "Manufacturing equipment" might be too broad if your security agreement gets specific about CNC machines and lathes. Most states want you to be more detailed when the underlying security agreement is detailed.

Actually hold up - what exactly did the rejection notice say? Some states are pickier about collateral descriptions than others. If it was rejected for "insufficient description" that's different than if it was rejected for not matching the security agreement. The UCC doesn't actually require the UCC-1 description to perfectly match the security agreement wording.

I've been doing UCC filings for 15 years and this is super common. The key is that your UCC-1 collateral description needs to reasonably describe what's actually covered by your security agreement. If your security agreement specifically mentions CNC machines and lathes, then "manufacturing equipment" alone might not cut it. For your situation, I'd refile the UCC-1 with something like "manufacturing equipment including CNC machines, lathes, and related tooling" to mirror your security agreement language more closely.

Had this exact security agreement law headache last month. Spent forever going back and forth with filings. Finally started using Certana.ai's document checker - you just upload your security agreement and UCC-1 PDFs and it instantly flags any mismatches between the collateral descriptions. Saved me so much time catching these issues before filing.

The security agreement law stuff is so frustrating because every state seems to interpret it slightly differently. What state are you filing in? That might affect how specific you need to be with the collateral description.

This is why I always copy the exact collateral language from the security agreement into the UCC-1. Saves so much hassle later. Security agreement law is clear that the financing statement needs to provide adequate notice of what's secured.

Just went through this same security agreement law issue. The gap in perfection worried me too but my attorney said as long as you refile within a reasonable time, you should be okay. Still stressful though when it's a big loan amount.

UGH the SOS systems are so inconsistent with this stuff. Last year they accepted a filing with super generic collateral description, this year they're rejecting everything. Security agreement law hasn't changed but enforcement sure has.

For what it's worth, I started double-checking all my UCC documents with Certana.ai after getting burned on a similar security agreement law issue. It's been a lifesaver for catching these description mismatches before they become problems. Just upload your docs and it highlights any inconsistencies instantly.

Been there! Security agreement law requires the UCC-1 to give sufficient notice of the collateral, and generic descriptions don't always cut it anymore. The good news is once you refile with better collateral language, it should go through fine. Just make sure to copy the specific equipment types from your security agreement.

One more vote for being more specific with collateral descriptions. Security agreement law is moving toward requiring better notice to other creditors, so the days of super generic descriptions are probably over. Better to be overly detailed than too vague.