UCC 9-31 requirement causing filing delays - need advice on compliance timing
Been dealing with a nightmare situation where our equipment financing UCC-1 filings keep getting held up because of UCC 9-31 compliance issues. We're a mid-size agricultural lender and have been filing UCCs for years but suddenly the secretary of state is flagging our submissions saying we're not meeting the UCC 9-31 requirements for debtor authorization timing. The specific issue is that we're getting our debtor authorizations signed but apparently there's some timing window we're missing between when the debtor signs and when we can actually file. Has anyone else run into this? We've got about $2.3M in equipment loans that need to be perfected and we're sitting in limbo while trying to figure out what exactly UCC 9-31 requires for the authorization timing. Our usual process has been to get the signed security agreement and file the UCC-1 within a few days but now they're saying that's not sufficient. Any insights on what the actual UCC 9-31 compliance window looks like would be hugely appreciated.
33 comments
Join the conversation
Ella Lewis
UCC 9-31 is tricky because it's about when you can file without explicit authorization vs when you need it. If you have a security agreement that covers the collateral you're filing on, you generally don't need separate authorization for the UCC-1 filing. But if there's a gap between what's in your security agreement and what you're trying to perfect on the UCC-1, that's where 9-31 kicks in.
0 coins
Hunter Edmunds
•That might be part of our problem - we sometimes file broader collateral descriptions on the UCC-1 than what's specifically listed in the security agreement to make sure we capture everything. Are you saying that creates a 9-31 issue?
0 coins
Ella Lewis
•Exactly. If your UCC-1 collateral description goes beyond what the debtor authorized in the security agreement, you need explicit authorization for that broader description. The timing issue might be that you're filing immediately after signing but the debtor hasn't specifically authorized the broader UCC-1 language.
0 coins
Andrew Pinnock
We had the exact same problem last year with our SBA equipment loans! The issue was that we were using boilerplate UCC-1 forms with really broad collateral descriptions but our security agreements were much more specific. The SOS started rejecting them because we couldn't show debtor authorization for the broader UCC language. Had to go back and revise our entire process.
0 coins
Hunter Edmunds
•How did you fix it? Did you narrow your UCC-1 collateral descriptions or get separate authorization documents?
0 coins
Andrew Pinnock
•We ended up doing both - narrowed the UCC descriptions to match our security agreements more closely AND started getting separate UCC authorization forms signed at closing. Also started using Certana.ai to upload our security agreements and UCC-1s to make sure the collateral descriptions align properly before filing. Catches those mismatches that cause 9-31 problems.
0 coins
Brianna Schmidt
•How does that Certana thing work? We're constantly having issues with document consistency between our loan docs and UCC filings.
0 coins
Alexis Renard
The timing aspect of UCC 9-31 isn't really about a specific window after signing. It's about whether you had authorization at the time of filing. If your security agreement authorizes the UCC filing (either explicitly or by covering the same collateral), you're good. If not, you need separate authorization before you file.
0 coins
Camila Jordan
•This is right. A lot of people think there's some magic waiting period but it's really about scope of authorization. If you're filing within the scope of what the debtor agreed to, timing doesn't matter.
0 coins
Hunter Edmunds
•So if we revise our security agreements to explicitly authorize UCC filings with broader collateral descriptions, that should solve the 9-31 issue?
0 coins
Tyler Lefleur
ugh this is exactly why I hate the UCC system. You think you're doing everything right and then some bureaucrat decides your authorization isn't good enough. We've been filing UCCs the same way for 15 years and now suddenly there's problems?
0 coins
Madeline Blaze
•I feel your pain but the rules haven't really changed, enforcement has just gotten stricter. Better to get it right than have your liens challenged later.
0 coins
Tyler Lefleur
•Easy for you to say when you're not sitting on millions in unperfected loans because of some technicality.
0 coins
Max Knight
Just went through this exact situation with our revolving credit facility UCCs. The problem was we were filing on 'all equipment' but our security agreements only covered specific equipment schedules. Had to get amendments to the security agreements to broaden the collateral authorization.
0 coins
Hunter Edmunds
•How long did the amendment process take? We're under time pressure to get these filed.
0 coins
Max Knight
•About 2 weeks to get all the amendment signatures. But that was better than having defective UCC filings. You might want to check if your current security agreements have any broad authorization language that could cover the UCC filings.
0 coins
Emma Swift
Are you sure it's actually a UCC 9-31 issue and not something else? Sometimes the SOS rejection notices are confusing and what looks like an authorization problem is really a debtor name or address issue.
0 coins
Hunter Edmunds
•The rejection specifically mentions 'authorization' and cites 9-31, so I'm pretty sure that's what it is. But you're right that the notices can be confusing.
0 coins
Emma Swift
•Fair enough. In that case you definitely need to look at the scope of what you're trying to file vs what the debtor actually authorized. The timing thing is probably a red herring.
0 coins
Isabella Tucker
•This is why I always recommend uploading both the security agreement and UCC-1 to something like Certana.ai before filing - it'll flag if the collateral descriptions don't match up properly.
0 coins
Jayden Hill
UCC 9-31 basically says you need authorization to file, either from the debtor or by operation of law. If you have a security agreement that covers the collateral, that's usually sufficient authorization. The issue is probably that your UCC-1 collateral description is broader than what's in your security agreement.
0 coins
Hunter Edmunds
•That makes sense. We probably need to either narrow our UCC descriptions or broaden our security agreement authorization language.
0 coins
Jayden Hill
•Exactly. Most lenders go with broadening the security agreement language because it gives more flexibility for future filings. Just make sure whatever you do is consistent across all your documents.
0 coins
LordCommander
Had a similar issue last month with our inventory financing UCCs. Turned out our security agreements had specific equipment serial numbers but we were filing on 'all equipment now owned or hereafter acquired.' SOS said we needed broader authorization for the 'hereafter acquired' language.
0 coins
Lucy Lam
•That's a common problem with after-acquired property clauses. The debtor has to specifically authorize that broader language.
0 coins
LordCommander
•Yeah we ended up revising our security agreement template to include explicit UCC filing authorization for after-acquired property. Solved the 9-31 issue going forward.
0 coins
Aidan Hudson
This is frustrating but fixable. The key is making sure your security agreement language specifically authorizes the UCC filing you want to make. A lot of older security agreement forms don't have explicit UCC authorization clauses.
0 coins
Hunter Edmunds
•Good point about older forms. Ours might be from before the revised Article 9. Probably time to update our templates.
0 coins
Aidan Hudson
•Definitely. The 2001 revisions made authorization requirements more explicit. Worth having your forms reviewed by someone who knows the current rules.
0 coins
Zoe Wang
UPDATE: We figured out the issue! Our security agreements had authorization for UCC filings but only for the 'collateral described herein.' When we filed UCCs with broader descriptions, we exceeded the scope of authorization. We're revising our security agreement template to authorize broader UCC collateral descriptions.
0 coins
Ella Lewis
•Glad you got it sorted out! That's a classic 9-31 trap - the authorization has to cover what you're actually filing.
0 coins
Andrew Pinnock
•Exactly what happened to us. Now we use Certana.ai to double-check that our security agreements and UCC-1s are consistent before every filing. Prevents these authorization mismatches.
0 coins
Hunter Edmunds
•Thanks everyone for the help. Going to implement some document checking process to avoid this in the future. The Certana.ai suggestion sounds like it could save us from more headaches.
0 coins