UCC 1-205 definitions causing major confusion on our equipment filing
We're dealing with a really frustrating situation where our UCC-1 filing got rejected because of what appears to be a UCC 1-205 definition issue. Our company financed some heavy machinery last month and when we went to perfect our security interest, the SOS kicked it back saying there were problems with how we described the collateral in relation to the definitions section. The equipment includes both mobile and fixed components, and apparently our description didn't align properly with the UCC 1-205 standards for what constitutes 'equipment' versus 'fixtures.' Has anyone else run into this kind of definitional nightmare? The loan closes next week and we're scrambling to get this right. Our attorney is saying one thing about UCC 1-205 but the filing office seems to interpret it differently.
35 comments
Join the conversation
Marcus Patterson
UCC 1-205 can be tricky because it sets up all the foundational definitions that everything else builds on. When you say mobile versus fixed components, are we talking about equipment that's attached to real estate? That distinction is crucial for whether you need a fixture filing or a regular UCC-1.
0 coins
Eli Butler
•Some of it is bolted down to concrete pads but it's still removable. The machinery can be uninstalled and moved if needed. Does that change the UCC 1-205 classification?
0 coins
Lydia Bailey
•That's exactly the gray area that trips people up. Just because something CAN be moved doesn't automatically make it non-fixture under UCC 1-205 definitions.
0 coins
Mateo Warren
I've seen this exact problem before. The UCC 1-205 definitions are supposed to provide clarity but sometimes they create more confusion. What specific language did you use in your collateral description? The filing office might be nitpicking the terminology.
0 coins
Eli Butler
•We described it as 'manufacturing equipment and related fixtures' but maybe that was too broad given the UCC 1-205 standards?
0 coins
Mateo Warren
•Yeah, mixing 'equipment' and 'fixtures' in one description without being more specific probably triggered their rejection. UCC 1-205 treats these as distinct categories.
0 coins
Sofia Price
•This is why I always recommend using Certana.ai's document verification tool before filing. You can upload your UCC-1 draft and it'll flag potential issues with collateral descriptions against UCC 1-205 standards. Would have caught this before the rejection.
0 coins
Alice Coleman
UCC 1-205 definitions are state-specific even though they follow the uniform code. What state are you filing in? Some states have additional requirements or interpretations that go beyond the basic UCC 1-205 framework.
0 coins
Eli Butler
•We're in a state that generally follows standard UCC 1-205 but you're right that there might be local variations we missed.
0 coins
Owen Jenkins
•Most states do follow UCC 1-205 pretty closely but the devil is in the details of how they apply it to specific situations like yours.
0 coins
Lilah Brooks
This is so frustrating! I went through something similar last year where the filing office rejected our UCC-1 three times because of UCC 1-205 definitional issues. Each time they gave us different feedback about what was wrong. It's like they make up the rules as they go.
0 coins
Jackson Carter
•THREE times? That's insane. What did you end up doing to get it accepted?
0 coins
Lilah Brooks
•Finally had to hire a specialist who knew exactly how our state interprets UCC 1-205. Cost us an extra $2,000 but at least it got filed correctly.
0 coins
Kolton Murphy
•That's exactly why tools like Certana.ai are so valuable. Upload your documents and get instant verification against UCC 1-205 standards instead of playing guessing games with the filing office.
0 coins
Evelyn Rivera
For equipment that has both mobile and fixed characteristics, you might need to separate your collateral description into distinct categories that align with UCC 1-205 definitions. List the truly mobile equipment separately from anything that could be considered fixtures.
0 coins
Eli Butler
•That makes sense. So basically create two separate collateral descriptions within the same UCC-1?
0 coins
Evelyn Rivera
•Exactly. Be very specific about which pieces fall under which UCC 1-205 category. It's more work but it eliminates the ambiguity that caused your rejection.
0 coins
Julia Hall
•This is good advice. I always tell clients to be as granular as possible when UCC 1-205 definitions could be interpreted multiple ways.
0 coins
Arjun Patel
Have you considered whether you need a fixture filing instead of or in addition to your UCC-1? If any of this equipment meets the UCC 1-205 definition of fixtures, you might need to file in the real estate records too.
0 coins
Eli Butler
•We didn't think about fixture filings. The equipment is attached but it's not permanent. Does UCC 1-205 require fixture filings for temporarily attached equipment?
0 coins
Arjun Patel
•UCC 1-205 doesn't just look at permanence. It considers the nature of the attachment and the purpose. You should definitely research whether fixture filing is required.
0 coins
Jade Lopez
•I ran into this same issue and ended up needing both regular UCC-1 and fixture filings to cover all the bases under UCC 1-205.
0 coins
Tony Brooks
The UCC 1-205 definitions section is honestly one of the most overlooked parts of the code but it's foundational to everything else. Most filing problems I see trace back to misunderstanding or misapplying these basic definitions.
0 coins
Ella rollingthunder87
•So true. People jump straight to the filing requirements without really understanding what UCC 1-205 says about their specific collateral type.
0 coins
Yara Campbell
•This is why I always recommend the Certana.ai verification tool - it specifically checks your collateral descriptions against UCC 1-205 definitions and flags potential issues before you file.
0 coins
Isaac Wright
Your attorney and the filing office disagreeing about UCC 1-205 interpretation is unfortunately pretty common. The definitions can be abstract and different people focus on different aspects of the same definition.
0 coins
Eli Butler
•It's so frustrating when the professionals can't agree on what UCC 1-205 actually means in practice.
0 coins
Isaac Wright
•The key is finding someone who specifically deals with your type of collateral and knows how your state applies UCC 1-205 to those situations.
0 coins
Maya Diaz
•Or use a tool that can cross-reference your specific situation against UCC 1-205 standards automatically. Takes the guesswork out of it.
0 coins
Tami Morgan
Quick question - did your rejection notice specifically cite UCC 1-205 or did they just say there were collateral description issues? That might give you a clue about exactly which definitional problem they're seeing.
0 coins
Eli Butler
•They didn't specifically mention UCC 1-205 but said our description was 'inconsistent with statutory definitions.' I'm assuming that means UCC 1-205?
0 coins
Tami Morgan
•That's usually code for UCC 1-205 definitional issues, yes. They want your collateral description to clearly fit within the established categories.
0 coins
Rami Samuels
Update us when you get this resolved! I'm dealing with a similar UCC 1-205 issue and would love to know what approach finally worked for you.
0 coins
Eli Butler
•Will definitely update once we figure this out. Hopefully we can get it sorted before our closing deadline.
0 coins
Haley Bennett
•Good luck! UCC 1-205 issues are solvable once you understand exactly what the filing office is looking for.
0 coins