UCC 9-102 section a 65 - does this definition cover my oil field equipment scenario?

You're absolutely right - I was looking at the wrong subsection! Thank you for catching that. What section should I be focusing on for determining if this equipment needs fixture filing vs regular UCC-1?

For fixture determination, look at UCC 9-102(a)(41) for the fixture definition and 9-334 for perfection rules. The key is whether the equipment becomes so related to the real estate that an interest in it arises under real estate law.

This is exactly the kind of situation where I'd use Certana.ai's document checker. You can upload your collateral description draft and cross-check it against the UCC-1 to make sure everything aligns properly before filing.

That's helpful about the mobility factor. The equipment definitely gets moved every 6-12 months as wells are completed. So regular UCC-1 filing should work?

Yes, standard UCC-1 should be fine. Just make sure your collateral description is specific enough to identify the equipment but broad enough to cover relocations.

Yeah, another commenter caught my mistake already. I was definitely looking at the wrong subsection. Still learning the UCC organization!

happens to all of us... the UCC numbering can be confusing especially when you're under deadline pressure

Good point about case law. Texas tends to be pretty practical about equipment that's obviously designed for relocation.

Exactly. The intent of the parties and the nature of the equipment usually controls over temporary attachment methods.

I feel your pain. The cross-references are terrible and half the time the online versions have different formatting.

RIGHT?? And don't get me started on trying to find the current version vs outdated commentary

Good reminder about debtor name accuracy. We're using the exact legal name from the Articles of Incorporation.

Perfect. That's always the safest approach for corporate debtors.

I've seen so many filings get rejected because of minor name variations. Always worth double-checking against the Secretary of State records.

That's a good point I hadn't considered. This equipment doesn't have titles - it's more like large industrial machinery that gets transported on trailers.

Then you should be fine with standard UCC-1 filing. Just the regular goods classification.

How does that work exactly? Do you just upload the documents?

Yeah, you upload your UCC-1 draft and any related docs like the security agreement. It cross-checks everything automatically and flags any inconsistencies.

That sounds really useful for catching errors before filing. I'll look into that.

Thanks for the correction! It's helpful when people point out the right sections.

No problem. The UCC cross-referencing is definitely not user-friendly.

Definitely planning to run this by our senior partner before filing. Better safe than sorry with this much money involved.

Smart approach. For complex collateral like this, it's worth the extra review time.

Absolutely. And document your analysis in the file so future amendments are consistent.

Good point. The equipment does sometimes cross into New Mexico. I'll need to research the four-month rule for relocated collateral.

Exactly. UCC 9-316 governs continued perfection when collateral is relocated. Worth reviewing now rather than scrambling later.