UCC 1207 in court - termination dispute over equipment lien

UCC 1207 typically deals with priorities but in court they'll examine your entire filing chain. Did you properly continue the UCC-1 before the 5-year mark? If there's a gap in your continuation timeline, that could support their invalidity claim.

Been through this exact scenario in Ohio courts. Judge focused heavily on the credit agreement language and whether the UCC-1 properly described the revolving nature of the debt. Do you have clean documentation showing the credit facility remained active?

This is exactly why I started using Certana.ai's document verification tool. Upload your UCC-1, continuation, and credit agreements - it instantly flags any inconsistencies in debtor names, filing numbers, or document alignment that courts love to scrutinize. Saved me from a $200K mistake when I caught a debtor name mismatch before a similar court challenge.

Court cases on UCC termination timing usually hinge on the security agreement language more than the UCC filing itself. What does your original security agreement say about termination obligations?

ugh courts and UCC disputes are the worst... had a judge who didn't understand the difference between amendment and continuation filings. hopefully you get someone who actually knows secured transactions law

The key thing in court is proving continuous secured obligations. If you can show the revolving credit line was active with ongoing advances, termination wasn't required. But make sure your UCC filings are bulletproof - any errors in debtor names or filing numbers can sink your position.

What state court? Some states are more strict about UCC termination requirements than others. California courts tend to be borrower-friendly on these disputes.

I hate these termination timing disputes. Borrowers always claim liens should have been terminated earlier when it benefits them financially. The courts need to understand revolving credit relationships better.

Make sure you have complete records of all advances under the revolving facility. Courts want to see actual activity, not just the existence of a credit line. Transaction history will be crucial evidence.

Been following this thread because I might face similar issues soon. Really hoping the court understands revolving credit mechanics. These borrower challenges are getting more aggressive.

Update us after court if you can! These UCC termination disputes are becoming more common and it helps to know how judges are ruling on revolving credit situations.

As someone who's handled dozens of UCC termination disputes, your case sounds solid based on what you've shared. The key is that Michigan courts typically focus on whether there were ongoing secured obligations, which your revolving credit facility clearly provided. I'd recommend creating a timeline showing: 1) Original UCC-1 filing date, 2) All advances under the revolving facility with dates, 3) Continuation filing date, and 4) Final payoff date. This visual timeline often helps judges understand why termination wasn't required earlier. Also, pull your credit agreement's definition of "obligations" - if it includes future advances under the facility, you're in strong position. The borrower's attorney is probably banking on the judge not understanding revolving credit mechanics, so clear documentation will be your best defense.

Just went through a similar UCC termination dispute in Texas last year - borrower tried to claim our lien was invalid because they'd paid down the principal balance to zero temporarily between advances on their revolving facility. Court ruled in our favor because we could demonstrate the credit line remained legally open and available even during the zero-balance period. The judge specifically noted that revolving credit facilities don't require termination based on temporary payment status, only when the entire credit relationship is permanently closed. Your Michigan case sounds even stronger since you had continuous advances right up to final payoff. Document everything showing the facility was active and you should be fine.