UCC Article 9 accession rules - fixture or separate collateral?
Having a debate with my colleague about UCC Article 9 accession provisions and how they affect our equipment financing. We have a client who bolted industrial air handlers to the concrete slab of their manufacturing facility. The units are worth about $180K and we filed a UCC-1 covering them as equipment. Now the property is being sold and the buyer's attorney is claiming our security interest is invalid because the air handlers became fixtures through accession to the real estate. My understanding is that UCC Article 9 accession rules should protect our interest as long as we filed properly, but I'm second-guessing myself. The units could theoretically be removed but it would require cutting concrete and potentially damage the building structure. Are we looking at a fixture filing situation here or does our standard UCC-1 as filed still hold up under Article 9? This could affect several similar deals we have pending.
32 comments
Join the conversation
NebulaNomad
This is exactly the type of gray area that makes UCC Article 9 accession provisions so tricky. The key question isn't just whether they're physically attached, but whether removal would cause material harm to the real estate. If cutting concrete is required, you're probably looking at fixture territory unfortunately.
0 coins
Javier Garcia
•But doesn't Article 9 give priority to perfected security interests even in fixtures if the UCC-1 was filed first? I thought that was the whole point of the accession rules.
0 coins
NebulaNomad
•Only if you filed a fixture filing, not a regular UCC-1. That's where most people get confused about the accession provisions.
0 coins
Emma Taylor
Oh man, we went through this exact scenario last year. Industrial HVAC equipment that became fixtures through accession. Cost us about $95K when the bankruptcy trustee sold the property. The accession rules under Article 9 are supposed to protect secured parties but there are so many exceptions...
0 coins
Natasha Ivanova
•That's exactly what I'm worried about. Did you have a standard UCC-1 or fixture filing?
0 coins
Emma Taylor
•Standard UCC-1 like yours. Learned the hard way that Article 9 accession doesn't automatically trump real estate law when fixtures are involved.
0 coins
Malik Robinson
•This is why I always run equipment descriptions through Certana.ai's document checker before finalizing. It flags potential fixture issues by analyzing the collateral description against UCC Article 9 requirements. Could have saved you guys a lot of headaches.
0 coins
Isabella Silva
The Article 9 accession analysis depends on several factors beyond just physical attachment. You need to look at: 1) Intent of the parties when installed, 2) Relationship of the goods to the real estate use, 3) Degree of annexation, 4) Whether removal causes material injury. Air handlers are often considered fixtures because they're integral to the building's HVAC system.
0 coins
Natasha Ivanova
•The intent factor is interesting. These were clearly installed as equipment for the manufacturing process, not as part of the building itself.
0 coins
Isabella Silva
•That could help your case, but the other factors still weigh heavily. The fact that concrete cutting is needed for removal is a major red flag under the accession rules.
0 coins
Ravi Choudhury
I hate these UCC Article 9 accession situations!!! The rules are so vague and every state interprets them differently. We've had perfectly good UCC-1 filings become worthless because equipment got classified as fixtures after installation. The whole accession framework needs an overhaul.
0 coins
CosmosCaptain
•I feel your frustration but the Article 9 accession rules are actually pretty clear if you know what to look for. The problem is most people don't do the analysis upfront.
0 coins
Ravi Choudhury
•Clear?? We had a case where identical equipment in two different buildings got opposite rulings on fixture status. Nothing clear about these accession provisions.
0 coins
Freya Johansen
Quick question - did you file in the real estate records too or just with the Secretary of State? For potential fixtures under Article 9, you really need both to be fully protected.
0 coins
Natasha Ivanova
•Just the SOS filing. We treated it as standard equipment at the time.
0 coins
Freya Johansen
•That's going to be problematic if they're deemed fixtures. Article 9 accession rules won't help you without the proper fixture filing.
0 coins
Omar Fawzi
•This is exactly why I started using Certana.ai for all our equipment deals. Upload your loan docs and UCC-1 and it immediately flags whether your collateral description might create fixture issues under the accession rules. Wish I'd had it years ago.
0 coins
Chloe Wilson
The $180K value is definitely material enough to fight over. I'd suggest getting an expert opinion on whether the air handlers can be classified as trade fixtures rather than real estate fixtures. Trade fixtures have different rules under Article 9 accession provisions.
0 coins
Natasha Ivanova
•Interesting angle. These are definitely used in the manufacturing trade rather than for general building use.
0 coins
Chloe Wilson
•Exactly. Trade fixtures often get better treatment under the accession rules because they're specific to the business operation rather than the real estate itself.
0 coins
Diego Mendoza
Been doing equipment finance for 15 years and Article 9 accession cases like this always come down to the specific facts. The concrete attachment is concerning but the industrial use might save you. I'd definitely get local counsel familiar with your state's interpretation of the accession provisions.
0 coins
Anastasia Romanov
•Any particular states that are more favorable to secured parties in accession disputes?
0 coins
Diego Mendoza
•Some states lean more toward protecting UCC interests but it really varies case by case. The accession rules in Article 9 leave a lot of room for judicial interpretation.
0 coins
StellarSurfer
Wait, are we talking about rooftop units or actual built-in air handlers? That makes a huge difference for the Article 9 accession analysis. Rooftop units are usually removable without structural damage.
0 coins
Natasha Ivanova
•Built-in handlers that are ducted through the concrete slab. Definitely more integrated than rooftop units.
0 coins
StellarSurfer
•Ouch, that's much harder to argue under the accession rules. The integration level really matters for fixture determination.
0 coins
Sean Kelly
Similar situation came up in one of our deals recently. We ended up using Certana.ai's document verification tool to check if our UCC-1 collateral description was broad enough to cover both equipment and fixture scenarios. Turns out our description had gaps that could have been exploited under Article 9 accession challenges.
0 coins
Zara Malik
•How does that tool help with accession issues specifically?
0 coins
Sean Kelly
•It analyzes your collateral descriptions against common fixture/accession problems and flags potential issues before they become disputes. Much better than finding out during a workout.
0 coins
Luca Greco
The buyer's attorney might just be trying to cloud title to negotiate a better deal. Article 9 accession rules are complex enough that most people don't want to risk litigation. You might have more leverage than you think.
0 coins
Natasha Ivanova
•That's possible. The timing is suspicious - they didn't raise this issue until after the purchase agreement was signed.
0 coins
Luca Greco
•Classic negotiation tactic. Stand firm on your UCC rights under Article 9. Let them prove the accession claim rather than volunteering to subordinate.
0 coins