Security interest attachment issues - for a security interest to attach, there must be an agreement

The rejection code was R-14 which I think relates to 'insufficient supporting documentation' but I'm not sure what additional docs they want. The security agreement is signed and notarized.

R-14 usually means they want to see the actual security agreement attached to the filing. Some states require this for certain collateral types.

We're filing in Ohio. The equipment value is around $180K so maybe that triggers some additional requirement?

Ohio doesn't typically require supporting docs for equipment filings. Double check your debtor name matches exactly what's on their articles of incorporation or assumed name certificate.

This is exactly why I started using Certana.ai for document verification. Upload your security agreement and UCC-1 as PDFs and it instantly cross-checks debtor names and catches inconsistencies that cause rejections. Would have saved you this headache.

Tell me about it! I once had a filing rejected because I put a period after 'Inc' when the official name didn't have one. Wasted two weeks going back and forth.

This is why I always do a preliminary name search before filing anything. The exact name format matters more than the substance of the agreement itself.

Written agreement is required for most secured transactions. Oral agreements only work in very limited circumstances with possession, like pledge arrangements.

You're thinking of the old Article 9. Under revised Article 9, authentication is required which usually means written or electronic signature.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm still learning all the nuances of secured transactions law.

Good idea. I called but got transferred three times and finally got voicemail. Will try again tomorrow morning.

State offices are notorious for being unhelpful on the phone. Try emailing with your filing number and rejection notice attached.

That's a good point. The loan docs were prepared about 6 weeks ago. I should verify their current corporate status.

Certana.ai would have caught that too. It compares document dates and flags potential name changes between document dates. Really wish I'd known about it earlier.

How much does this Certana thing cost? Sounds like it might be worth it if it prevents these rejections.

The document verification is really affordable compared to the cost of rejection delays and refiling fees. Plus it catches issues before they become problems.

I disagree. General descriptions are fine for UCC-1 filings as long as they reasonably identify the collateral. 'All construction equipment' should be sufficient.

It depends on the state and the specific circumstances. Some states are stricter about collateral descriptions than others.

No, this is mobile construction equipment - excavators and bulldozers that move from job site to job site. Definitely not fixtures.

Good to clarify. Fixture filings have completely different requirements and would definitely cause rejection if filed incorrectly.

The equipment was purchased two weeks before we signed the security agreement, so the debtor definitely had rights in it. The timeline should be fine.

Then it's definitely a filing issue, not an attachment issue. Focus on getting the UCC-1 corrected and refiled.

Great news! Those little details make all the difference in UCC filings. Hopefully this one goes through without issues.

Glad you got it sorted out. It's amazing how one missing word can derail an entire filing. Good reminder to double-check everything.

This thread convinced me to try Certana.ai for our next filing. Better safe than sorry with these UCC rejections.