UCC-1 Filing Rejected - Written or Authenticated Security Agreement Issue
Our UCC-1 filing got rejected yesterday and I'm pulling my hair out trying to figure out what went wrong. The rejection notice mentions something about our written or authenticated security agreement not being sufficient, but I thought we had everything in order. We're a small equipment finance company and this is for a $180K forklift deal we closed last month. The debtor signed all the paperwork including what I believed was a proper security agreement, but apparently there's some technical issue. Has anyone dealt with rejection notices specifically citing problems with the written or authenticated security agreement requirement? I'm worried we might lose our perfected security interest if we can't get this straightened out quickly. The customer is already using the equipment and we need to make sure our lien position is solid.
40 comments
Join the conversation
Mei Chen
This is actually pretty common - the UCC-1 filing itself doesn't get rejected because of security agreement issues usually, unless you're in a state that requires you to attach the agreement or reference it specifically in the filing. Are you sure the rejection was about the security agreement and not something like debtor name mismatch or missing collateral description?
0 coins
Jamal Edwards
•The rejection notice specifically mentioned 'insufficient written or authenticated security agreement' but you're right that it seems weird. Let me double-check the exact wording on the rejection.
0 coins
Liam O'Sullivan
•Yeah that does sound odd. Most states don't even look at your security agreement when processing UCC-1 filings.
0 coins
Amara Okonkwo
Wait, are you confusing the UCC-1 filing requirements with the underlying security agreement requirements? The written or authenticated security agreement is what you need to CREATE the security interest, but the UCC-1 is what you file to PERFECT it. Two different things entirely. Your filing rejection is probably about something else - debtor name, address, or collateral description most likely.
0 coins
Jamal Edwards
•You might be right. I'm looking at the rejection again and it's confusing. Maybe I misread what they were saying about the security agreement part.
0 coins
Giovanni Marino
•This happens ALL the time. People get rejection notices and panic about the wrong thing. Focus on the actual filing errors first.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Sayed
•Exactly. The security agreement stays between you and the debtor - the filing office doesn't care about it as long as your UCC-1 form is filled out correctly.
0 coins
Dylan Hughes
I had a similar situation last year where I thought the rejection was about our security agreement but it turned out to be a debtor name issue. The rejection notices can be really confusing sometimes. What exactly does your rejection notice say word for word?
0 coins
Jamal Edwards
•Let me get the exact language... it says 'Filing rejected due to insufficient documentation regarding written or authenticated security agreement provisions.' That's why I thought it was about the agreement itself.
0 coins
Dylan Hughes
•That's really strange wording. What state are you filing in? Some states have weird requirements.
0 coins
NightOwl42
This is exactly why I started using Certana.ai for document verification before filing. You can upload your security agreement and UCC-1 together and it cross-checks everything to make sure they align properly - debtor names, collateral descriptions, all that stuff. Would have caught whatever discrepancy is causing your rejection. Really saved me from these kinds of headaches.
0 coins
Sofia Rodriguez
•How does that work exactly? Do you just upload PDFs and it compares them?
0 coins
NightOwl42
•Yeah, exactly. Upload your security agreement and UCC-1 draft, and it automatically flags any inconsistencies between the documents. Super quick and catches things you might miss when reviewing manually.
0 coins
Dmitry Ivanov
OK this is driving me crazy - what state are you in?? Because I've never seen a UCC-1 rejection that mentions security agreement issues unless you're in one of those weird states that requires additional documentation. Most states just want the basic UCC-1 form info and that's it.
0 coins
Jamal Edwards
•We're in Ohio. I didn't think they had any special requirements but maybe I'm wrong?
0 coins
Dmitry Ivanov
•Ohio is pretty standard. This rejection notice sounds really unusual. Are you sure you're reading it right?
0 coins
Ava Thompson
•Ohio definitely doesn't require security agreement attachments for UCC-1 filings. Something else is going on here.
0 coins
Miguel Herrera
I'm wondering if maybe there's a mismatch between how the debtor is identified in your security agreement versus how you listed them on the UCC-1? Like if your security agreement says 'ABC Equipment LLC' but your UCC-1 says 'ABC Equipment Limited Liability Company' or something like that?
0 coins
Jamal Edwards
•Oh wow, that could be it. Let me check... our security agreement has the debtor as 'Midwest Manufacturing Inc.' and I think I put 'Midwest Manufacturing Incorporated' on the UCC-1.
0 coins
Miguel Herrera
•BINGO! That's probably your problem right there. The names have to match exactly between your security agreement and UCC-1 or you could have perfection issues later.
0 coins
Zainab Ali
•This is such a common mistake. Always use the exact legal name from the charter documents.
0 coins
Connor Murphy
Even if the names don't match perfectly between your security agreement and UCC-1, that shouldn't cause a FILING rejection. The filing office doesn't compare those documents. A name mismatch might cause problems later if someone searches, but it wouldn't stop your filing from being accepted initially.
0 coins
Yara Nassar
•Right, filing offices just check that you filled out the form correctly, not whether it matches other documents.
0 coins
Jamal Edwards
•So then what could be causing this rejection? I'm so confused now.
0 coins
StarGazer101
Can you post the EXACT rejection notice? Redact the names but give us the exact language. I bet it's not actually about your security agreement at all and there's some miscommunication happening here.
0 coins
Jamal Edwards
•Here's the exact text: 'UCC-1 Filing #2024-XXXXX rejected. Reason: Insufficient documentation provided. Written or authenticated security agreement required for this filing type.' Does that help?
0 coins
StarGazer101
•AHA! You filed this as something other than a standard UCC-1! What did you check in the filing type box? Did you accidentally mark it as a fixture filing or something?
0 coins
Keisha Jackson
•That has to be it. Some filing types DO require additional documentation. Standard UCC-1s never do.
0 coins
Paolo Romano
This whole thread is why I always double-check my filings with automated tools now. Used Certana.ai last month when I had a similar name discrepancy issue - uploaded my articles of incorporation and UCC-1 draft and it immediately flagged that I had the debtor name wrong. Saved me from a rejection and potential lien problems.
0 coins
Amina Diop
•How much does something like that cost? Seems like it would be worth it to avoid these headaches.
0 coins
Paolo Romano
•Honestly don't remember the exact cost but it was totally worth it considering how much time it saved and the peace of mind.
0 coins
Oliver Schmidt
PLEASE tell us what you checked for filing type! I'm dying to know if you accidentally marked fixture filing or agricultural lien or something. That would explain everything.
0 coins
Jamal Edwards
•OMG you guys are right! I just looked and I accidentally checked 'Manufactured Home Transaction' instead of regular UCC-1. No wonder they wanted additional documentation!
0 coins
Oliver Schmidt
•THERE IT IS! Manufactured home filings have completely different requirements. Just refile as a standard UCC-1 and you'll be fine.
0 coins
Natasha Volkov
•Classic mistake! The manufactured home box is right next to the general UCC-1 box on most forms. Easy to check the wrong one.
0 coins
Javier Torres
•This is exactly why I always triple-check those boxes before submitting. One little click can cause so much trouble.
0 coins
Emma Wilson
Well that was a fun detective story! Just goes to show how important it is to read those filing forms carefully. Good thing you figured it out before your lien window closed.
0 coins
Jamal Edwards
•Thanks everyone! Refiling now as a standard UCC-1. This forum saved me so much stress and probably my job too.
0 coins
QuantumLeap
•Another happy ending! Love when these threads work out.
0 coins
Lucy Taylor
This thread is a perfect example of why attention to detail matters so much in UCC filings! I'm relatively new to secured transactions and this kind of troubleshooting really helps me understand the potential pitfalls. The fact that checking the wrong box can completely change the filing requirements is something I definitely need to remember. Thanks to everyone who helped walk through the detective work - I learned a lot just from reading through this!
0 coins