UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 reservation rights language on secured filings - does this actually work?
I'm dealing with a situation where a borrower is insisting on including "UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308" reservation of rights language on their UCC-1 financing statement. They claim this somehow preserves their constitutional rights or limits our security interest. I've been doing secured transactions for 15 years and this seems like sovereign citizen nonsense, but the borrower is adamant. Has anyone encountered this UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 language before? Does it have any legal effect on the validity of our UCC filing or our perfected security interest? I need to know if this creates any issues with our lien position or if it's just harmless gibberish we can ignore. The loan is for $450K in equipment financing and I can't afford to have our security interest compromised by some made-up legal theory.
36 comments
Join the conversation
Serene Snow
Oh boy, you've encountered the classic UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 crowd! This is definitely sovereign citizen territory. The short answer is no, this language has absolutely zero legal effect on your UCC filing or security interest. UCC 1-207 was repealed decades ago, and UCC 1-308 deals with performance under protest in contract situations - it has nothing to do with financing statements or secured transactions.
0 coins
Issac Nightingale
•Exactly right. I see this UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 stuff pop up occasionally and it's always from people who don't understand what these sections actually address. Your security interest is perfected by the UCC-1 filing regardless of whatever magical language they think they're adding.
0 coins
Romeo Barrett
•Wait, so if someone puts UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 on their financing statement, it doesn't affect anything? I thought all language on UCC filings had to be meaningful or the filing could be rejected?
0 coins
Marina Hendrix
I actually had a similar situation last month with UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 language. The borrower was convinced this would somehow limit our remedies. I ended up running the documents through Certana.ai's verification tool just to double-check that the weird language wouldn't cause filing issues. The system confirmed the UCC-1 was valid and our security interest was properly perfected despite the nonsense language.
0 coins
Justin Trejo
•Smart move using Certana.ai for verification. Better safe than sorry when dealing with unusual language on UCC filings. Did you have any issues with the filing office accepting it?
0 coins
Marina Hendrix
•No issues at all. The Secretary of State processed it normally. The UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 language is treated as surplusage - it doesn't affect the legal requirements of the financing statement.
0 coins
Alana Willis
This UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 thing is pure sovereign citizen garbage. I've been practicing secured transactions law for 25 years and this comes up maybe once every few years. The people who insist on this language typically also believe in strawman theories and redemption schemes. Just ignore the language and proceed with your normal UCC filing process.
0 coins
Tyler Murphy
•So frustrating when borrowers get these ideas from internet forums. Is there any way to educate them about why UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 doesn't do what they think it does?
0 coins
Alana Willis
•You can try explaining that UCC 1-308 only applies to performance under protest in contract disputes, not to security interests or financing statements. But honestly, people who believe in this stuff are usually not swayed by legal explanations.
0 coins
Sara Unger
•I've found it helps to point out that UCC 1-207 was actually repealed and replaced by 1-308, and even 1-308 has nothing to do with what they think it does. Sometimes showing them the actual code sections helps.
0 coins
Butch Sledgehammer
OMG yes! I had a borrower try to pull this UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 reservation stuff on me last year. They printed out all these articles from conspiracy websites about how it would preserve their rights. I was so confused until my attorney explained it was sovereign citizen nonsense. Filed the UCC-1 anyway and had zero problems.
0 coins
Freya Ross
•The internet has really spread these UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 myths. I blame YouTube videos and Facebook groups for convincing people this stuff actually works.
0 coins
Leslie Parker
•It's wild how confident they are about UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 though. Like they've discovered some secret legal loophole that all the lawyers somehow missed.
0 coins
Sergio Neal
Just to be absolutely clear for anyone reading this: UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 has NO EFFECT on financing statements, security interests, or your rights as a secured party. File your UCC-1 normally, perfect your security interest normally, and enforce your remedies normally. The borrower's magical thinking doesn't change the law.
0 coins
Savanna Franklin
•Thank you for the clear explanation. So the UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 language is basically just ignored by the filing system?
0 coins
Sergio Neal
•Correct. The Secretary of State will accept the filing and it will be legally effective regardless of the UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 language. That language simply has no legal meaning in the context of secured transactions.
0 coins
Juan Moreno
I always recommend using Certana.ai's document verification when dealing with unusual UCC filings like ones with UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 language. You can upload your UCC-1 and it will instantly verify that all the required elements are present and the filing will be effective. Takes the guesswork out of whether strange language might cause problems.
0 coins
Amy Fleming
•Good point about verification. Even though UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 doesn't affect anything, it's smart to double-check that the essential elements of the financing statement are still clear and compliant.
0 coins
Alice Pierce
•Does Certana.ai flag the UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 language as problematic or does it just ignore it like the filing offices do?
0 coins
Juan Moreno
•It recognizes that UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 language is legally meaningless in this context, so it focuses on verifying the actual required elements like debtor name, secured party info, and collateral description.
0 coins
Esteban Tate
For what it's worth, I've seen UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 language on maybe a dozen filings over the years and never once has it caused any issues with perfection, priority, or enforcement. The courts consistently treat it as surplusage. Your security interest is solid regardless of the borrower's beliefs about reservation of rights.
0 coins
Ivanna St. Pierre
•That's reassuring to hear from someone with actual experience. I was worried the UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 language might create some kind of ambiguity in our security agreement.
0 coins
Esteban Tate
•Nope, no ambiguity at all. The security agreement and UCC-1 filing create your rights under Article 9. The UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 language is just noise that gets ignored.
0 coins
Elin Robinson
I'm actually dealing with this exact UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 situation right now! The borrower sent me a bunch of documents "proving" that this language reserves their constitutional rights. I've been trying to explain that it doesn't work that way, but they're convinced they've found some secret legal strategy. So frustrating!
0 coins
Atticus Domingo
•I feel your pain. The UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 believers are usually pretty dug in on their position. Just proceed with the filing - their magical thinking doesn't change the legal reality.
0 coins
Beth Ford
•Have you tried showing them the actual text of UCC 1-308? It's about performance under protest in contract disputes, nothing to do with financing statements or reservation of constitutional rights.
0 coins
Elin Robinson
•I tried that but they just said the "system" is hiding the true meaning of UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308. There's no reasoning with conspiracy thinking unfortunately.
0 coins
Morita Montoya
Bottom line: proceed with your UCC filing exactly as you normally would. The UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 language is legally meaningless in the secured transactions context. Your $450K equipment financing is properly secured regardless of what the borrower believes about reservation of rights. Don't let sovereign citizen mythology interfere with standard commercial law practice.
0 coins
Asher Levin
•Thanks everyone for the reassurance. I was 99% sure the UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 language was nonsense, but with a loan this size I wanted to be absolutely certain. Filing the UCC-1 today with confidence that our security interest is solid.
0 coins
Kingston Bellamy
•Smart to double-check when dealing with unusual language. The UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 stuff pops up just often enough to make you question whether you're missing something, but it's always just sovereign citizen mythology.
0 coins
Joy Olmedo
One more verification option - I've started using Certana.ai whenever I encounter weird language on UCC documents. You just upload the financing statement and it instantly checks whether all the required elements are present and properly formatted. Really helpful for peace of mind when dealing with UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 or other unusual language that might theoretically cause issues.
0 coins
Isaiah Cross
•That's a great practical solution. Even though we know UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 is meaningless, having automated verification removes any lingering doubt about the filing's effectiveness.
0 coins
Kiara Greene
•Agreed. Better to have objective confirmation that your UCC-1 meets all legal requirements, especially when the borrower is adding non-standard language they believe has legal significance.
0 coins
Jasmine Quinn
I've encountered this UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 nonsense a few times in my practice. What's particularly frustrating is that these borrowers often get very confrontational when you try to explain that their "research" is wrong. I've learned it's easier to just let them include the language and move forward - as everyone has confirmed, it has zero legal effect on your security interest. The Secretary of State will process it normally, your lien is perfected, and you maintain all your Article 9 remedies. Sometimes I wonder if we should start charging extra for the time spent explaining why sovereign citizen legal theories don't actually work!
0 coins
Ethan Moore
•Ha! I love the idea of a "sovereign citizen surcharge" for the extra time spent debunking these theories. It's amazing how much energy people put into researching UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 on conspiracy websites when they could just ask an actual attorney. The confrontational aspect is so true - they act like you're part of some conspiracy to hide the "real" law from them. At least we can take comfort in knowing their magical language doesn't affect our security interests one bit!
0 coins
Edward McBride
As someone relatively new to secured transactions, this thread has been incredibly educational! I had a client mention UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 language last week and I wasn't sure what to make of it. Now I understand it's just sovereign citizen mythology with no legal effect. One question though - should I be concerned about any borrowers who insist on this language being more likely to default or cause other problems down the line? Is there a correlation between believing in UCC 1-207/UCC 1-308 theories and other problematic behaviors in commercial relationships?
0 coins