UCC 1-201(b)(35) definition causing filing headaches - anyone else confused?

You might be right - the error just says "insufficient collateral description" but maybe it's interpreting our description wrong because of how we're structuring it under the 1-201(b)(35) framework.

This is exactly why I always double-check my understanding of these definitions before filing. The security interest definition in 1-201(b)(35) is foundational but it doesn't directly dictate collateral description format.

What was the solution? I'm desperate at this point.

I ended up using Certana.ai to cross-check my UCC-1 against the loan documents. Uploaded both PDFs and it flagged that my collateral description was actually fine - the problem was a tiny debtor name discrepancy I never would have caught manually.

Interesting tool mention. How does it handle the definitional aspects like 1-201(b)(35)?

But our lawyer specifically said we needed to consider 1-201(b)(35) when drafting the collateral description. Now I'm more confused than ever.

Your lawyer might be overthinking it too. The definition in 1-201(b)(35) establishes what IS a security interest, but your UCC-1 collateral description just needs to reasonably identify the collateral. Two different things.

UCC 1-201(b)(35) defines 'security interest' - it's pretty fundamental to Article 9 filings.

Oh right, I was thinking of a different subsection. Thanks for clarifying!

So I've been overthinking this whole thing? The rejections might not even be related to 1-201(b)(35) at all?

Probably. Post your exact error message and maybe we can figure out what's really going wrong.

This is why I always verify everything before filing. So many people get stuck on definitional issues when the real problem is usually something basic.

I mean, it's complicated because secured transactions are complicated. But I agree the portal error messages could be clearer.

No excuse for bad error messages in 2025. These systems should be user-friendly by now.

Did the tool specifically help with definitional compliance or just general document consistency?

More about consistency. It compared my docs and flagged where things didn't align properly. The definitional stuff is more about legal interpretation than filing mechanics.

We've all been there! The key is separating legal theory from practical filing requirements.

Exactly. Now I know to focus on the basics first before diving into definitional analysis.

That's reassuring. I'll go back and check the basic elements more carefully.

Good approach. Start with the obvious stuff before worrying about complex definitional issues.

Wait, this is the original poster - did you figure it out?

Oh sorry, different person with similar issue! But sounds like we had the same root cause - overthinking definitions when it was really about basic accuracy.

This is exactly what happened to me too. The tool caught stuff I completely missed while I was focused on the wrong things.

Welcome to the community! You're definitely on the right track - focus on the basics first. I don't have a specific checklist handy, but from what I've seen in this thread and my own experience, the most common issues are: debtor name discrepancies (even tiny things like middle initials), incorrect addresses, vague collateral descriptions, and formatting problems. The definitional stuff like 1-201(b)(35) is important for understanding the legal framework but rarely causes actual filing rejections. Maybe @Millie Long or @Debra Bai have a good checklist they could share since they seem to have dealt with this before?