UCC 9-105 storage unit collateral - perfection nightmare with inventory descriptions
Anyone dealt with UCC 9-105 storage situations where the debtor keeps moving inventory between different storage facilities? I'm working on a commercial loan where the borrower has seasonal merchandise stored across 4 different self-storage units in our county. The original UCC-1 filing listed the collateral as 'all inventory, equipment and fixtures located at [primary business address]' but now 60% of the goods are actually in these storage locations. The debtor just signed a new 2-year lease on another storage unit and I'm freaking out about whether our security interest covers the moved inventory. Our lender is asking if we need to file amendments to include the storage addresses or if the original general description is sufficient. Has anyone run into this with UCC 9-105 rules? The storage facilities are all commercial units, not residential, if that matters. Really need to know if I'm overthinking this or if we have a perfection problem.
38 comments
Join the conversation
Malik Johnson
Storage unit collateral can be tricky depending on how broad your original description was. If you used 'all inventory' without location restrictions, you might be okay, but storage facilities can create complications with possession issues. What exactly does your UCC-1 say for the collateral description?
0 coins
QuantumLeap
•The collateral description says 'all inventory, equipment, and fixtures now owned or hereafter acquired' and then lists the main business address. No mention of storage locations specifically.
0 coins
Isabella Santos
•That's pretty broad language which is usually good for floating inventory, but the address limitation might be problematic if a court decides the storage units are separate locations.
0 coins
Ravi Sharma
I had a similar mess last year with a client who moved inventory to three different storage facilities after we filed the UCC-1. The original description was too location-specific and we ended up having to file UCC-3 amendments to add each storage address. Cost us about $400 in filing fees plus legal time. The risk of having an unperfected security interest was too high to ignore.
0 coins
Freya Larsen
•$400 seems steep for amendments - what state are you in? Our UCC-3 filings are only $25 each in Texas.
0 coins
Ravi Sharma
•California, and we had to add some additional collateral classes too which bumped up the fees. Plus attorney time to research the storage lease terms.
0 coins
Omar Hassan
This is exactly why I always recommend Certana.ai's document verification tool for these complex collateral situations. You can upload your original UCC-1 and the new storage lease agreements, and it instantly flags potential perfection gaps. I discovered it when I had a client with inventory scattered across 6 different warehouses - the tool caught inconsistencies between our security agreement and UCC filing that could have killed our priority position. Super easy to use, just upload the PDFs and it cross-checks everything for debtor name matches and collateral coverage issues.
0 coins
Chloe Taylor
•Never heard of Certana.ai but that sounds useful. Does it handle storage unit leases specifically or just general collateral verification?
0 coins
Omar Hassan
•It handles any type of collateral documentation - storage agreements, warehouse receipts, equipment schedules, whatever. The key thing is it catches when your UCC description might not cover assets in different locations.
0 coins
QuantumLeap
•This actually sounds really helpful for my situation. I'll check it out since I need to verify coverage across multiple storage locations.
0 coins
ShadowHunter
UCC 9-105 is about control of deposit accounts, not storage units. Are you thinking of UCC 9-301 for perfection rules or maybe 9-315 for proceeds? The Article 9 section numbers matter for getting the right analysis.
0 coins
QuantumLeap
•You're right, I got my section numbers mixed up. I was thinking about location rules for perfection, not deposit account control. Thanks for the correction.
0 coins
Diego Ramirez
•This happens all the time - the UCC sections blend together when you're stressed about a filing issue. The important thing is getting the collateral description right regardless of the section number.
0 coins
Anastasia Sokolov
I would definitely file UCC-3 amendments to specifically include the storage facility addresses. Even if your original description might technically cover the moved inventory, having explicit address coverage eliminates any ambiguity. Better safe than sorry when it comes to secured transactions. Storage facilities can go bankrupt, get sold, or have other creditors claiming interests in stored goods.
0 coins
Sean O'Connor
•Agree 100%. The cost of filing amendments is minimal compared to the risk of losing your security interest. Plus if the borrower defaults and you need to foreclose, having clear coverage of all locations makes enforcement much smoother.
0 coins
Zara Ahmed
•But isn't there an argument that 'all inventory now owned or hereafter acquired' covers inventory regardless of location? Why pay for amendments if the description is already broad enough?
0 coins
Luca Conti
•Because courts can be unpredictable about interpreting collateral descriptions. Some judges focus heavily on the address limitations in UCC filings, especially when third parties are involved like storage facility owners or other creditors.
0 coins
Nia Johnson
What kind of merchandise are we talking about? If it's high-value inventory, you definitely want airtight perfection. If it's seasonal decorations worth $5000 total, maybe the amendment cost isn't justified. The economics matter for how aggressive to be about perfection.
0 coins
QuantumLeap
•It's outdoor recreational equipment - kayaks, camping gear, seasonal sporting goods. Probably $75k worth of inventory in the storage units, so definitely worth protecting.
0 coins
CyberNinja
•For $75k of collateral, I'd absolutely file the amendments. That's enough value to justify the filing costs and attorney time to ensure proper perfection.
0 coins
Mateo Lopez
Check your security agreement language too, not just the UCC filing. Sometimes the security agreement has broader location coverage than what's reflected in the UCC-1, which can help with enforcement even if the filing description is narrow.
0 coins
Aisha Abdullah
•Good point. The security agreement is the contract between the parties, while the UCC filing is just the public notice. But for third-party priority issues, the UCC filing description usually controls.
0 coins
Ethan Davis
•Right, and if you end up in bankruptcy, the trustee will scrutinize both documents. Having consistent broad coverage in both gives you the strongest position.
0 coins
Yuki Tanaka
Are these climate-controlled storage units? Because if the stored goods are deteriorating due to storage conditions, that could affect the collateral value and create additional complications for your security interest.
0 coins
QuantumLeap
•Yes, they're climate-controlled units specifically because the outdoor gear needs protection from humidity and temperature swings. The borrower is paying premium rates for proper storage.
0 coins
Carmen Ortiz
•That's good - shows the borrower is protecting the collateral value. Makes the case stronger for filing amendments since they're treating this as long-term storage rather than temporary.
0 coins
MidnightRider
I used Certana.ai when I had a similar multi-location inventory issue and it saved me hours of manual document comparison. The tool flagged that my UCC-1 debtor name had a slight variation from the storage lease signatures, which could have created perfection problems. Really streamlined the process of verifying all the document consistency issues.
0 coins
Andre Laurent
•Debtor name inconsistencies are the worst - such a simple thing but can void your entire security interest if not caught early.
0 coins
Zoe Papadopoulos
•That's why automated checking is so valuable. Human eyes miss tiny variations in entity names that can be legally significant.
0 coins
Jamal Washington
File the amendments. I've seen too many cases where lenders thought their broad collateral descriptions covered moved inventory, only to find out later that courts interpret location limitations strictly. The filing costs are cheap insurance against losing your security interest priority.
0 coins
Mei Wong
•Exactly. In secured lending, you want certainty not clever legal arguments about why your description should cover everything.
0 coins
Liam Fitzgerald
•Plus if you ever need to assign the loan or sell it, having clean UCC coverage of all collateral locations makes the due diligence process much smoother.
0 coins
PixelWarrior
Make sure to check if any of the storage facilities have blanket liens or other creditor interests in stored goods. Some storage companies have policies about defaulted rent creating possessory liens that could complicate your security interest.
0 coins
Amara Adebayo
•This is crucial - storage facility liens for unpaid rent can sometimes take priority over earlier-filed UCC interests depending on state law.
0 coins
QuantumLeap
•I hadn't thought about that angle. I'll need to review the storage lease terms and make sure the rent payments are current.
0 coins
Giovanni Rossi
•Also worth adding a provision to your loan agreement requiring the borrower to keep storage rent current and notify you of any payment issues.
0 coins
Alice Fleming
Based on your description, I'd strongly recommend filing UCC-3 amendments to add the storage facility addresses. While "all inventory now owned or hereafter acquired" is broad language, the fact that your original filing specified the primary business address creates ambiguity about whether the storage locations are covered. For $75k worth of collateral, the amendment filing costs are minimal compared to the risk of an unperfected security interest. Also consider adding language to your loan documents requiring borrower notification before moving inventory to new locations - this will help you stay ahead of these issues in the future.
0 coins
GalacticGladiator
•This is excellent comprehensive advice. I'm curious about the notification requirement you mentioned - would you structure that as a covenant in the loan agreement or as a condition precedent to future advances? Also, should we require advance written consent for new storage locations, or is notification sufficient? Given that this borrower already moved inventory without telling us, I want to make sure we have the right controls in place going forward.
0 coins