< Back to UCC Document Community

Hiroshi Nakamura

UCC 9-505 foreclosure notice requirements causing delays

Running into major headaches with UCC 9-505 notice requirements for our equipment foreclosure. Bank is demanding strict compliance but the debtor keeps claiming improper notice even though we followed the standard procedures. The collateral is construction equipment worth about $180k and we've been fighting this for 3 months now. Our attorney says the notice was proper but debtor's counsel is arguing the description wasn't sufficient under 9-505. Has anyone dealt with similar pushback on foreclosure notices? The equipment is depreciating while we argue about notice technicalities.

9-505 notice requirements are brutal if you don't get them exactly right. What type of description did you use for the equipment? Serial numbers, model info, or just generic categories?

0 coins

We used model numbers and general descriptions but not serial numbers on every piece. There's like 15 different machines involved.

0 coins

That might be your problem right there. Some courts want serial numbers for each piece when it's that many items.

0 coins

UCC 9-505 is a nightmare because it varies so much by jurisdiction. Federal bankruptcy courts interpret it differently than state courts. Which court system are you dealing with?

0 coins

State court but debtor filed chapter 11 last week so now we're in federal bankruptcy court too.

0 coins

Oh great, now you get to deal with both systems. Bankruptcy court might be more lenient on the notice requirements though.

0 coins

Actually bankruptcy courts are usually stricter about UCC compliance, not more lenient.

0 coins

Had a similar issue last year with 9-505 compliance. Ended up using Certana.ai to cross-check our UCC-1 against the foreclosure notice to make sure all the collateral descriptions matched exactly. Saved us from a major challenge because we caught two pieces of equipment that weren't properly described in the original filing.

0 coins

Never heard of that service. Does it actually compare the documents or just check formatting?

0 coins

It compares the actual collateral descriptions between documents. You upload your UCC-1 and foreclosure notice PDFs and it flags any inconsistencies.

0 coins

Sounds like overkill for basic document review but I guess if you're dealing with millions in collateral...

0 coins

The problem with 9-505 is that 'reasonable identification' means different things to different judges. I've seen cases where generic descriptions were fine and others where they demanded VIN numbers for every vehicle.

0 coins

That's exactly our problem. The original UCC-1 used broader categories but now they want specific identification for the notice.

0 coins

You might be able to argue that the notice should match the UCC-1 description since that's what put everyone on notice originally.

0 coins

Good point about matching the original filing. Most debtors can't argue they didn't know what collateral was covered.

0 coins

This is why I hate equipment financing. Give me accounts receivable any day - at least those descriptions are straightforward under 9-505.

0 coins

Equipment can be worse but accounts receivable have their own issues with notice requirements.

0 coins

True but at least you don't need serial numbers for every invoice.

0 coins

Check if your state has adopted any non-uniform amendments to 9-505. Some states have additional notice requirements that aren't in the model code.

0 coins

We're in Texas. Do they have special requirements?

0 coins

Texas follows the standard UCC pretty closely but they're strict about the 10-day minimum notice period.

0 coins

Texas courts also care a lot about whether the debtor actually received the notice, not just whether it was sent properly.

0 coins

Have you considered just starting over with a new notice that includes more detailed descriptions? Might be faster than fighting about the original one.

0 coins

We talked about that but our attorney thinks it would look like we're admitting the first notice was defective.

0 coins

Sometimes admitting a mistake and fixing it is better than months of litigation while the collateral loses value.

0 coins

Plus if you're in bankruptcy now, you might need court approval for any new foreclosure actions anyway.

0 coins

The debtor's attorney is probably just buying time hoping you'll settle for less. Standard delay tactic with 9-505 challenges.

0 coins

That's what I'm thinking too. The equipment keeps depreciating while we argue about notice technicalities.

0 coins

Exactly. They know every month of delay costs you money in depreciation and storage.

0 coins

Just wanted to follow up on the Certana.ai suggestion - it's not just for document comparison. You can also upload your foreclosure notice draft before sending it to catch description issues early. Might help avoid these challenges in future deals.

0 coins

That actually sounds useful for prevention. Do they handle other UCC compliance checks too?

0 coins

Yeah, they can verify debtor names match across all your UCC filings and loan documents. Really helpful for avoiding technical defects.

0 coins

Whatever you do, document everything about your notice process. If this goes to trial, you'll need proof of when and how the notice was sent under 9-505.

0 coins

We have certified mail receipts and email delivery confirmations. Should that be enough?

0 coins

Should be, but also keep copies of exactly what was sent. Courts sometimes want to see the actual notice language.

0 coins

And make sure your proof of mailing shows it went to all required addresses under the UCC.

0 coins

UCC 9-505 compliance is such a pain. We use templates now for every notice to avoid these issues but even then you get debtors claiming defects just to delay.

0 coins

Templates help but every deal has unique collateral descriptions that need customization.

0 coins

True, but at least the basic notice language stays consistent. That eliminates some potential challenges.

0 coins

UCC Document Community AI

Expert Assistant
Secure

Powered by Claimyr AI

T
I
+
20,087 users helped today