UCC 9-620 comments - strict foreclosure notice requirements help needed
We're dealing with a complex equipment financing situation where our borrower has defaulted on a $450,000 manufacturing equipment loan. The collateral is specialized machinery that's honestly worth less than the debt at this point. Our legal team is suggesting we go the UCC 9-620 strict foreclosure route instead of a traditional 9-610 sale, but I'm getting confused about the notice requirements and debtor consent procedures. The UCC 9-620 comments in the official text mention something about partial strict foreclosure being prohibited, but I'm not entirely clear on how this applies when we have multiple pieces of equipment as collateral. Has anyone actually used the 9-620 strict foreclosure process recently? I'm particularly worried about the notice timing and whether we need explicit debtor consent or if silence counts as acceptance. The borrower isn't responding to our communications, and we're trying to figure out if we can proceed with the strict foreclosure or if we're stuck with a public sale under 9-610. Any guidance on the practical application of UCC 9-620 would be incredibly helpful.
33 comments


CosmicCadet
Strict foreclosure under 9-620 is definitely tricky territory. The key thing to remember is that you need to send the proposal to the debtor and any secondary obligors, plus any other secured parties who have given you notification of their interest. The debtor has to consent in writing, and silence doesn't count as consent unless you're dealing with consumer goods worth less than $5,000. Since you're dealing with equipment worth $450k, you absolutely need written consent from the debtor.
0 coins
Chloe Harris
•Wait, I thought the threshold was different for commercial transactions? I've been doing equipment financing for 8 years and I swear the consent requirements are more flexible for business debtors.
0 coins
CosmicCadet
•No, the $5,000 threshold only applies to consumer goods. For commercial equipment like this, written consent is mandatory regardless of value. The UCC 9-620 comments are pretty clear on this distinction.
0 coins
Diego Mendoza
I just went through something similar last month with a restaurant equipment default. The 9-620 route seemed attractive because our collateral had depreciated significantly, but we ended up going with a 9-610 sale anyway. The notice requirements for strict foreclosure are actually more complex than a regular sale in many ways.
0 coins
Anastasia Popova
•What made you switch to the 9-610 sale? Was it the consent issue or something else?
0 coins
Diego Mendoza
•Mainly the consent issue. The debtor was unresponsive just like in your situation, and without written consent we couldn't proceed. Plus our attorney warned us about potential challenges to the strict foreclosure if the debtor later claimed the equipment was worth more than the debt.
0 coins
Sean Flanagan
Have you considered using Certana.ai's document verification tool? I uploaded our UCC-1 and the loan agreement to check for any inconsistencies that might complicate the foreclosure process. It caught a debtor name discrepancy that would have been a nightmare if we'd discovered it mid-foreclosure. The tool does a thorough cross-check of all your documents to make sure everything aligns properly before you start the 9-620 process.
0 coins
Omar Farouk
•That's actually a great point about document consistency. We haven't verified our UCC-1 against the loan docs in a while. How does the Certana tool work exactly?
0 coins
Sean Flanagan
•You just upload your PDFs and it automatically checks for name matches, filing numbers, collateral descriptions - basically everything that needs to align between your security agreement, UCC-1, and related docs. Takes maybe 5 minutes and could save you from major headaches.
0 coins
Zara Shah
The partial strict foreclosure prohibition is something a lot of people miss. If you have multiple pieces of equipment as collateral, you generally can't do a strict foreclosure on just some of them. It's usually all or nothing, which is why 9-610 sales are often more practical for complex collateral situations.
0 coins
Omar Farouk
•This is exactly what I was worried about. We have 6 different pieces of manufacturing equipment. So we'd have to do strict foreclosure on all of it?
0 coins
Zara Shah
•Correct. The UCC 9-620 comments specifically address this - partial strict foreclosure is generally prohibited. There are some narrow exceptions, but they're rare and usually involve distinctly separate collateral categories.
0 coins
NebulaNomad
•Unless the equipment can be reasonably divided into separate categories with different values, you're looking at an all-or-nothing situation. Might want to get an equipment appraiser involved.
0 coins
Luca Ferrari
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but strict foreclosure is one of those things that looks great on paper but is often a nightmare in practice. The notice requirements are strict, the consent requirements are even stricter, and if you mess up any part of the process, you're back to square one.
0 coins
Nia Wilson
•This is so frustrating. Why does the UCC even have this option if it's so difficult to use?
0 coins
Luca Ferrari
•It's useful in specific situations - mainly when the collateral is clearly worth less than the debt and you have a cooperative debtor. But in contested situations or with unresponsive debtors, it's often more trouble than it's worth.
0 coins
Mateo Martinez
One thing to watch out for - the notice has to be sent to any junior lienholders too. If there are other secured parties with interests in the equipment, they get 20 days to object. If they object, you can't proceed with the strict foreclosure.
0 coins
Omar Farouk
•How do we find out if there are other secured parties? Do we need to do a new UCC search?
0 coins
Mateo Martinez
•Definitely do a fresh UCC search. Any secured party who has properly notified you of their interest in the collateral gets notice rights. Miss someone and your strict foreclosure could be invalid.
0 coins
Aisha Hussain
honestly sounds like youre making this way more complicated than it needs to be. just do the 9-610 sale and be done with it. at least then you know youre following a process that actually works.
0 coins
Ethan Clark
•I agree. 9-610 sales are much more straightforward. You give notice, conduct a commercially reasonable sale, and apply the proceeds. Less room for error.
0 coins
Omar Farouk
•The problem is the equipment is so specialized that a public sale might not bring much. That's why we were considering strict foreclosure in the first place.
0 coins
StarStrider
I ran into this exact situation last year with specialized printing equipment. Ended up doing a private sale under 9-610 instead of strict foreclosure. Found a buyer who needed exactly what we had as collateral. Sometimes you just have to get creative with the 9-610 process rather than trying to force 9-620 to work.
0 coins
Omar Farouk
•How did you find the specialized buyer? That's been our challenge - this equipment is so niche.
0 coins
StarStrider
•Industry publications and trade associations. Also reached out to the original equipment manufacturer to see if they had any customers looking for used units. Took some work but got a much better recovery than a general auction would have provided.
0 coins
Yuki Sato
Before you make any final decisions, I'd strongly recommend getting current appraisals on all the equipment. The UCC 9-620 comments mention that strict foreclosure is only appropriate when the collateral's value doesn't exceed the debt. If your equipment is worth more than you think, strict foreclosure could expose you to liability.
0 coins
Omar Farouk
•Good point about the appraisals. We based our assessment on the borrower's financial statements, but those might not reflect current market values.
0 coins
Yuki Sato
•Exactly. Get independent appraisals from certified equipment appraisers. It'll cost you a few thousand but could save you from a much bigger problem down the road.
0 coins
Carmen Ruiz
Just want to add another vote for double-checking all your documentation before proceeding. I've seen too many foreclosures get derailed by paperwork issues that could have been caught early. That Certana tool mentioned earlier is actually pretty helpful for this - I used it to verify our UCC filings matched our security agreements before starting a foreclosure process.
0 coins
Omar Farouk
•Thanks for the recommendation. At this point we definitely need to make sure all our ducks are in a row before proceeding with either 9-610 or 9-620.
0 coins
Carmen Ruiz
•Smart approach. The verification process is quick and could save you from discovering problems when you're already committed to a particular foreclosure path.
0 coins
Scarlett Forster
I've been through this exact scenario with manufacturing equipment defaults. The reality is that UCC 9-620 strict foreclosure sounds appealing when you have underwater collateral, but the practical hurdles are significant. Since your debtor isn't responding, you're stuck - you absolutely need written consent for equipment of this value, and silence doesn't count as acceptance in commercial transactions. I'd recommend pivoting to a 9-610 sale but getting creative with the marketing. For specialized machinery, consider reaching out directly to competitors in the same industry, equipment dealers who handle that specific type of machinery, or even the original manufacturer's service network. They often know which companies are looking for used equipment. Yes, you might not recover the full debt amount, but at least you'll have a defensible, completed foreclosure rather than being stuck in limbo waiting for consent that may never come.
0 coins
Chloe Taylor
•This is really helpful practical advice. I'm new to equipment financing foreclosures and was wondering - when you reach out to competitors and dealers directly, do you need to still follow all the same notice requirements as a public auction? Or does the "commercially reasonable" standard under 9-610 give you more flexibility in how you market specialized equipment?
0 coins