UCC 9-102 Section 8-65 Definitions Causing Filing Confusion
I'm preparing a UCC-1 filing for our equipment finance division and running into interpretation issues with UCC 9-102 Section 8-65 definitions. The collateral involves specialized manufacturing equipment that could fall under multiple definition categories, and I'm concerned about getting the description wrong and having our perfected security interest challenged later. Our legal team is split on whether this equipment qualifies under the general goods definition or needs more specific categorization per Section 8-65. Has anyone dealt with similar definitional ambiguity when preparing UCC filings? The last thing we need is a filing that doesn't properly perfect our security interest because of incorrect classification under these UCC definitions.
33 comments
Join the conversation
Mei Liu
Section 8-65 can be tricky when you're dealing with equipment that straddles multiple categories. What type of manufacturing equipment are we talking about? Sometimes the key is looking at the primary function rather than getting caught up in technical specifications. I've seen filings get rejected because people overthink the classification when a broader description under the general goods category would have worked fine.
0 coins
Jamal Carter
•It's CNC machining equipment with integrated computer systems. The equipment functions primarily for manufacturing but has significant software components that could arguably fall under different definitional categories.
0 coins
Liam O'Donnell
•CNC equipment is usually pretty straightforward - it's manufacturing equipment, period. The software is just part of the machinery's operation, not a separate classification issue.
0 coins
Amara Nwosu
I had a similar situation last month with hybrid equipment that could be classified multiple ways under UCC 9-102. Instead of guessing and potentially getting it wrong, I used Certana.ai's UCC document verification tool to upload our equipment specs and UCC-1 draft. The system cross-checked our collateral description against the actual UCC definitions and flagged potential classification issues before we filed. Saved us from what could have been a costly mistake.
0 coins
AstroExplorer
•How accurate is that verification? I'm always skeptical of automated tools for something as nuanced as UCC classifications.
0 coins
Amara Nwosu
•It's not making the legal judgment for you, but it identifies inconsistencies and flags areas where your description might not align with standard interpretations. You still need to make the call, but it gives you a good starting point.
0 coins
Giovanni Moretti
•That's actually pretty smart. Better to catch potential issues before filing than deal with challenges later.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Farsi
Been filing UCCs for 15 years and honestly, when in doubt, go broader rather than narrower with your collateral description. Section 8-65 definitions are meant to provide clarity, not create traps. If your equipment is primarily used in manufacturing, describe it as manufacturing equipment and include the model numbers and specifications. Courts generally favor descriptions that give fair notice over overly technical parsing of definitional categories.
0 coins
Dylan Cooper
•This is exactly right. Fair notice is the standard, not perfect categorization. I've never seen a filing challenged successfully just because someone used 'equipment' instead of parsing every definitional subcategory.
0 coins
Sofia Perez
•But what if the debtor tries to argue the description was insufficient? Wouldn't a more specific classification under Section 8-65 provide better protection?
0 coins
Fatima Al-Farsi
•A debtor arguing insufficient description has to show the description was seriously misleading. Using broader terms with specific identifying information (serial numbers, models) usually provides better protection than getting lost in definitional weeds.
0 coins
Dmitry Smirnov
UGH the definitions in 9-102 drive me crazy! I spent three hours yesterday trying to figure out if our client's equipment qualified under one section versus another. The whole system seems designed to create confusion rather than clarity.
0 coins
ElectricDreamer
•I feel your pain. Sometimes I think they made it complicated on purpose.
0 coins
Ava Johnson
•The definitions aren't really that bad once you get used to them. It's just that people try to make them more complicated than they need to be.
0 coins
Miguel Diaz
Quick question - are you filing this as a purchase money security interest? Because if so, you might have additional considerations beyond just the Section 8-65 classification issue.
0 coins
Jamal Carter
•Yes, it is PMSI. Good catch. We're financing the equipment purchase directly, so we need to make sure we get both the classification and the PMSI designation correct.
0 coins
Miguel Diaz
•Then definitely be extra careful with your description. PMSI rights can be lost if the collateral description doesn't properly identify what was financed.
0 coins
Zainab Ahmed
I just went through something similar with medical equipment that had computer components. What helped me was looking at how other lenders describe similar collateral in their filings. Most stick with functional descriptions rather than getting into the technical definitional categories from Section 8-65.
0 coins
Connor Byrne
•Where do you look up other filings for comparison? That's actually a great idea.
0 coins
Zainab Ahmed
•Most state UCC databases let you search by collateral type or debtor name. Just be careful not to copy descriptions word-for-word.
0 coins
Yara Abboud
Have you considered just calling the Secretary of State's office? Sometimes they can give informal guidance on how they interpret certain classifications for filing purposes.
0 coins
PixelPioneer
•Most SOS offices won't give legal advice on classifications. They'll tell you about filing procedures but not interpretation of collateral descriptions.
0 coins
Keisha Williams
•True, but sometimes the filing staff can tell you what descriptions they commonly see accepted for similar equipment.
0 coins
Paolo Rizzo
Ran into this exact issue last quarter. After going in circles on the definitions, I uploaded our charter documents and draft UCC-1 to Certana.ai's verification system. It flagged that our collateral description was inconsistent with how we described the same equipment in our loan agreement. Turned out we were overcomplicating the UCC classification when we should have matched our loan docs. Tool probably saved us from a perfection gap.
0 coins
Amina Sy
•That's a really good point about consistency across documents. I never thought to check that.
0 coins
Oliver Fischer
•Document consistency is huge. Courts look at all the related documents together, not just the UCC filing in isolation.
0 coins
Natasha Ivanova
My take: describe it as 'CNC manufacturing equipment' with full model and serial number details. Section 8-65 definitions are there for edge cases, not to make simple equipment descriptions complicated. Your security interest will be fine with a straightforward functional description.
0 coins
NebulaNomad
•Agree completely. Keep it simple and descriptive rather than trying to parse every definitional nuance.
0 coins
Javier Garcia
•Simple descriptions work until they don't. I'd rather be over-precise than under-precise with collateral worth hundreds of thousands.
0 coins
Natasha Ivanova
•Fair point, but over-precision can create its own problems if you get the technical classification wrong.
0 coins
Emma Taylor
Just to close the loop on this - I ended up going with 'CNC manufacturing equipment and related software' with detailed specifications. Figured that covers both the mechanical and software aspects without getting lost in definitional categories. Filing was accepted without issues. Thanks everyone for the input!
0 coins
Malik Robinson
•Good solution. Sometimes the best approach is the most straightforward one.
0 coins
Isabella Silva
•Glad it worked out! These definitional questions always seem harder than they need to be.
0 coins