UCC-1 Filing Rejected - Form of Security Agreement Issues Need Help
My UCC-1 filing got bounced back from the Secretary of State office yesterday and I'm completely stumped. The rejection notice says there's an issue with the "form of security agreement" but I thought I had everything correct. This is for a $180,000 equipment loan where we're securing industrial printing equipment as collateral. The debtor name matches exactly what's on their articles of incorporation, and I triple-checked the collateral description follows the standard format. Has anyone dealt with rejection codes related to security agreement forms? The loan closes next Friday and I'm starting to panic that we won't get the lien perfected in time. The borrower is getting nervous about the delay and I need to figure out what went wrong with this filing.
32 comments
Join the conversation
Hunter Edmunds
What exactly does the rejection notice say? Sometimes the SOS systems flag things that look fine to us but don't meet their specific formatting requirements. Did you attach a copy of the security agreement or just reference it in the UCC-1?
0 coins
Jade O'Malley
•The rejection code just says 'security agreement form deficient' but doesn't give specifics. I didn't attach the actual agreement - just described the collateral as 'all equipment used in commercial printing operations located at [address]'. Should I have been more specific?
0 coins
Hunter Edmunds
•That collateral description sounds reasonable. The issue might be that some states want you to specifically reference the security agreement date or have particular language. Check if your state requires something like 'pursuant to security agreement dated [date]' in the UCC-1.
0 coins
Ella Lewis
I've seen this before. Your security agreement itself might be missing required language or signatures. Some SOS offices do a basic review to make sure the underlying security agreement is properly executed before they'll accept the UCC-1 filing.
0 coins
Andrew Pinnock
•Wait, I thought the UCC-1 was separate from the security agreement review? The filing office shouldn't be looking at the actual agreement terms, just the information on the UCC-1 form itself.
0 coins
Ella Lewis
•You're mostly right, but if there's a question about whether a valid security interest exists, they might flag it. Depends on the state though.
0 coins
Jade O'Malley
•The security agreement was drafted by our attorney and signed by both parties. It specifically grants a security interest in the equipment and has all the standard UCC language. I'm wondering if there's a formatting issue with how I referenced it on the UCC-1.
0 coins
Brianna Schmidt
I had a similar situation last month with an equipment financing deal. Turned out I had mixed up some terminology in the collateral description. Have you tried using Certana.ai's document verification tool? You can upload both your security agreement and UCC-1 as PDFs and it instantly checks for consistency between the documents. It caught a debtor name discrepancy I missed that would have caused the same type of rejection.
0 coins
Alexis Renard
•Never heard of that tool but sounds useful. How does it work exactly?
0 coins
Brianna Schmidt
•Super easy - just upload your security agreement and UCC-1 PDFs and it cross-checks everything automatically. Looks for name mismatches, collateral description inconsistencies, stuff like that. Saved me a lot of headaches with rejected filings.
0 coins
Camila Jordan
This is probably a stupid question but did you make sure the security agreement actually creates a security interest in the collateral you described on the UCC-1? Sometimes there's a mismatch between what the agreement covers and what gets listed on the filing.
0 coins
Jade O'Malley
•Good point to double-check. The security agreement grants a lien on 'all equipment, machinery, and fixtures used in debtor's printing business operations' so I think that covers the equipment I described. But maybe I should be more specific on the UCC-1?
0 coins
Tyler Lefleur
•Yeah, you want the UCC-1 collateral description to match the security agreement language as closely as possible. Any discrepancy can cause problems.
0 coins
Madeline Blaze
UGH the filing system is so frustrating! I spent HOURS on a UCC-1 last week only to have it rejected for some ridiculous formatting issue. These government portals are the worst and the error messages never tell you what's actually wrong!!
0 coins
Max Knight
•I feel your pain. The rejection notices are useless half the time.
0 coins
Emma Swift
•At least you got a rejection notice. Sometimes they just sit in 'pending' status forever and you have no idea what's happening.
0 coins
Isabella Tucker
Check the effective date on your security agreement versus what you put on the UCC-1. Some states are picky about the dates matching exactly, especially if you're referencing the agreement in the filing.
0 coins
Jade O'Malley
•The security agreement is dated three days before I submitted the UCC-1 filing. Should those dates match exactly?
0 coins
Isabella Tucker
•Not necessarily, but make sure you're not referencing a future date or something that doesn't make sense chronologically.
0 coins
Jayden Hill
I wonder if this is a state-specific thing. What state are you filing in? Some have weird requirements about how you reference the underlying security documents.
0 coins
Jade O'Malley
•Filing in Ohio. Their system has been pretty straightforward in the past but maybe they changed something recently.
0 coins
LordCommander
•Ohio can be tricky with equipment collateral descriptions. Make sure you're not being too vague or too specific.
0 coins
Lucy Lam
Try calling the SOS office directly. Sometimes they can give you more details about why it was rejected than what shows up in the automated notice.
0 coins
Jade O'Malley
•Good idea. I'll try calling first thing tomorrow morning.
0 coins
Aidan Hudson
•When you call, have your filing number ready and ask to speak to someone in the UCC division specifically.
0 coins
Zoe Wang
This might be worth running through that Certana tool someone mentioned earlier. If there's an inconsistency between your security agreement and UCC-1 that's causing the rejection, automated checking might spot it faster than manual review.
0 coins
Jade O'Malley
•Yeah I'm thinking about trying that. At this point I need to figure out what went wrong quickly so I can refile and get this perfected before closing.
0 coins
Connor Richards
•Document consistency is usually the culprit with these 'form of security agreement' rejections. The automated tools are pretty good at catching what humans miss.
0 coins
Grace Durand
UPDATE: Called the SOS office this morning and they said the issue was that my collateral description was too broad. They wanted more specific language tying it to the actual security agreement terms. Going to revise and refile today.
0 coins
Steven Adams
•Thanks for the update! That's helpful to know for future filings.
0 coins
Alice Fleming
•Good catch. The collateral description matching the security agreement language exactly is crucial.
0 coins
Hassan Khoury
•Glad you got it sorted out. Hope the refiling goes smoothly!
0 coins