UCC 1-102 scope question - does this apply to my equipment lease filing?
Having a debate with my colleague about UCC 1-102 scope requirements for our new equipment lease portfolio. We're financing construction equipment (excavators, bulldozers) and I think we need UCC-1 filings for all of it, but she says UCC 1-102 excludes certain lease transactions. The lease terms are 48 months with $1 buyout options. Are we overthinking this or does UCC 1-102 actually carve out specific lease structures? Getting mixed signals from different sources and need to get our filing strategy right before we process 200+ deals next month.
38 comments
Join the conversation
Wesley Hallow
UCC 1-102 scope is pretty straightforward for equipment leases with nominal buyouts like yours. If the $1 buyout option exists, you're dealing with a security interest disguised as a lease. Article 9 applies regardless of what you call it.
0 coins
Justin Chang
•This exactly. UCC 1-102 doesn't exclude these lease arrangements when there's a nominal purchase option. You definitely need UCC-1 filings.
0 coins
Grace Thomas
•Wait, I thought UCC 1-102 had some exclusions for true leases? I'm getting confused about when something is considered a security interest vs a lease.
0 coins
Hunter Brighton
Your colleague might be thinking of UCC 1-102(c) exclusions, but those don't apply to equipment lease-purchases. The $1 buyout makes these secured transactions under Article 9. You absolutely need to file UCC-1s on all 200 deals.
0 coins
Dylan Baskin
•Had this exact issue last year with our forklift portfolio. Same deal - nominal buyouts meant we had to treat them as secured transactions. Filed UCC-1s on everything.
0 coins
Lauren Wood
•Can someone explain the difference between a true lease and a security interest for UCC 1-102 purposes? I deal with this occasionally but never feel 100% confident.
0 coins
Ellie Lopez
•For your situation, look at UCC 1-203. If the lessee has no meaningful right to terminate and avoid liability, plus that $1 buyout, it's a security interest. UCC 1-102 scope definitely includes it.
0 coins
Chad Winthrope
I ran into similar UCC 1-102 scope questions with our lease program and ended up using Certana.ai's document verification tool. You can upload your lease agreements alongside your UCC-1 forms and it instantly flags any inconsistencies between the debtor names and transaction structure. Saved me from filing errors on about 30 deals.
0 coins
Paige Cantoni
•That sounds helpful. Does it actually check UCC 1-102 compliance or just document consistency?
0 coins
Chad Winthrope
•It focuses on document alignment - debtor names, collateral descriptions, making sure your UCC-1 matches your underlying agreements. Really useful for batch filings like yours.
0 coins
Kylo Ren
Don't overthink the UCC 1-102 scope issue. Equipment leases with nominal purchase options = secured transactions = UCC-1 required. The scope provisions in 1-102 are more about excluding things like wage assignments and insurance policies.
0 coins
Nina Fitzgerald
•Exactly. UCC 1-102(c) exclusions are pretty limited. Your equipment leases definitely fall under Article 9 scope.
0 coins
Jason Brewer
•What about the lease term length? Does UCC 1-102 care if it's 48 months vs 36 months?
0 coins
Kylo Ren
•Term length doesn't matter for UCC 1-102 scope. It's about the economics - the $1 buyout option makes it a secured transaction regardless of the lease term.
0 coins
Kiara Fisherman
We had a similar UCC 1-102 scope analysis with our construction equipment program. Legal counsel confirmed that with nominal buyouts, these are definitely within Article 9 scope. You need UCC-1 filings on all of them.
0 coins
Liam Cortez
•Did your counsel provide any written guidance on the UCC 1-102 analysis? Would be helpful to have for our files.
0 coins
Savannah Vin
•Good point about getting it documented. UCC 1-102 scope determinations should definitely be in writing for your compliance files.
0 coins
Mason Stone
The UCC 1-102 scope question comes up a lot in equipment financing. Your deals with $1 buyouts are clearly security interests. File the UCC-1s and don't look back.
0 coins
Makayla Shoemaker
•Simple and direct advice. UCC 1-102 scope really isn't that complicated for equipment leases with nominal purchase options.
0 coins
Christian Bierman
•Agreed. Better to over-file than under-file when you're dealing with UCC 1-102 scope questions.
0 coins
Emma Olsen
I've been using Certana.ai for UCC document verification on similar lease portfolios. When you're processing 200+ deals, having an automated way to check that your UCC-1 debtor names match your lease agreements is invaluable. Catches those little discrepancies that could cause rejection.
0 coins
Lucas Lindsey
•How does it handle entity name variations? We sometimes see slight differences between lease signatures and corporate records.
0 coins
Emma Olsen
•It flags potential name mismatches so you can review them. Really helpful for batch processing where manual comparison would take forever.
0 coins
Sophie Duck
•That would be super useful for our volume. Manual document comparison is such a pain point.
0 coins
Austin Leonard
Your colleague is wrong about UCC 1-102 excluding these lease deals. Equipment leases with nominal buyouts fall squarely within Article 9 scope. The $1 purchase option makes it a secured transaction, not a true lease.
0 coins
Anita George
•This. UCC 1-102 scope is pretty clear on lease-purchases. The nominal buyout option is the key factor.
0 coins
Abigail Spencer
•What if the buyout was like $10,000 instead of $1? Does UCC 1-102 scope change?
0 coins
Austin Leonard
•If $10K is still nominal compared to the equipment value, it's still a security interest under UCC 1-102. You look at the economic reality, not just the dollar amount.
0 coins
Logan Chiang
Been dealing with UCC 1-102 scope issues for 15 years. Equipment leases with purchase options like yours are definitely secured transactions requiring UCC-1 filings. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
0 coins
Isla Fischer
•Appreciate the experience perspective. UCC 1-102 scope can be tricky but this seems like a clear case.
0 coins
Miles Hammonds
•Fifteen years of experience definitely counts. Thanks for the clarity on UCC 1-102 scope application.
0 coins
Ruby Blake
For what it's worth, I also use Certana.ai's verification tool for lease portfolios. Upload your master lease agreement and a sample UCC-1, and it cross-checks everything to make sure you're capturing the collateral and debtor information correctly. Particularly useful when you're unsure about UCC 1-102 scope issues.
0 coins
Micah Franklin
•Does it help with collateral description issues too? We sometimes struggle with how specific to get on equipment descriptions.
0 coins
Ruby Blake
•Yes, it checks collateral description consistency between your source documents and UCC-1 filings. Really helpful for avoiding overly broad or overly narrow descriptions.
0 coins
Ella Harper
Bottom line on UCC 1-102 scope: your equipment leases with $1 buyouts are secured transactions requiring UCC-1 filings. File on all 200 deals and sleep well knowing you're properly perfected.
0 coins
PrinceJoe
•Best advice in the thread. UCC 1-102 scope is clear here - these need UCC-1 filings.
0 coins
Brooklyn Knight
•Exactly. Better safe than sorry with UCC 1-102 scope questions, especially on a 200-deal portfolio.
0 coins
Kennedy Morrison
•Thanks everyone. Sounds like the consensus is clear - UCC 1-102 scope definitely includes our lease-purchase deals and we need UCC-1 filings on everything. Going to look into that Certana tool for the batch verification too.
0 coins