UCC Article 9 personal property collateral description rejected - need help
Filed a UCC-1 last week for equipment financing on manufacturing machinery and got rejected by the SOS office. The rejection notice says 'insufficient collateral description' but I thought I was being thorough. I described it as 'all personal property owned by debtor including but not limited to manufacturing equipment, tools, and fixtures.' The loan is for $485,000 and we can't close until this gets sorted. Attorney is out of town and lender is breathing down my neck. Has anyone dealt with UCC Article 9 personal property description requirements that are this picky? I've filed dozens of these before without issues. What am I missing here?
42 comments
Join the conversation
Juan Moreno
That description is way too broad. SOS offices have been cracking down on generic 'all personal property' language. You need to be more specific about the actual collateral securing the loan. What type of manufacturing equipment exactly?
0 coins
Savanna Franklin
•It's CNC machines, lathes, and related tooling. Should I list each piece individually or can I use categories?
0 coins
Juan Moreno
•Categories work but be specific. 'CNC machining equipment, metal working lathes, and associated tooling' would be much better than your original description.
0 coins
Amy Fleming
I had this exact same issue last month with a UCC Article 9 personal property filing. The key is understanding what constitutes sufficient description under Article 9. Generic language fails the 'reasonably identifies' test. You need enough detail that a third party could understand what's being secured.
0 coins
Alice Pierce
•This is so frustrating! Why can't they just accept standard language that worked fine two years ago?
0 coins
Amy Fleming
•Courts have been stricter about enforcement. Better to over-describe than have a perfection challenge later.
0 coins
Esteban Tate
•Exactly right. I've seen loans fall apart because UCC filings got invalidated due to vague collateral descriptions.
0 coins
Ivanna St. Pierre
Had a similar headache with UCC Article 9 personal property descriptions getting rejected. What saved me was using Certana.ai's document checker - you upload your UCC-1 draft and it flags potential issues before filing. Caught three problems with my collateral description that would have caused rejections. Just upload the PDF and it cross-checks everything against filing requirements.
0 coins
Savanna Franklin
•Never heard of that service. Does it actually understand UCC Article 9 requirements or just basic formatting?
0 coins
Ivanna St. Pierre
•It specifically checks collateral descriptions against Article 9 standards. Saved me from multiple re-filings and the associated delays.
0 coins
Elin Robinson
Your description has two problems: it's too generic AND it includes fixtures which might need separate fixture filing depending on your state. Personal property and fixtures are different categories under UCC Article 9.
0 coins
Savanna Franklin
•Wait, the machinery isn't attached to the building. It's moveable equipment. Does that still count as fixtures?
0 coins
Elin Robinson
•If it's truly moveable then it's personal property, not fixtures. But your description mixing both categories probably confused the filing office.
0 coins
Atticus Domingo
•This distinction trips up so many people. Fixtures require completely different filing procedures in most states.
0 coins
Beth Ford
Been doing UCC filings for 15 years and the trend is definitely toward more specific descriptions. Gone are the days of 'all assets' language working reliably. For manufacturing equipment, I always include model numbers when available.
0 coins
Morita Montoya
•Model numbers seem excessive for a UCC filing. Isn't that more appropriate for security agreements?
0 coins
Beth Ford
•Not required but it eliminates any ambiguity about what's covered. Better safe than sorry with $485k on the line.
0 coins
Kingston Bellamy
ugh dealing with UCC Article 9 personal property rules again... my filing got bounced THREE times before I figured out the magic words. each rejection costs time and filing fees add up quick
0 coins
Savanna Franklin
•What description finally worked for you?
0 coins
Kingston Bellamy
•had to list specific equipment types and manufacturing processes. 'metalworking machinery used in automotive parts production' instead of just 'equipment
0 coins
Joy Olmedo
•That's actually a great example of industry-specific description that meets Article 9 requirements.
0 coins
Isaiah Cross
The rejection probably stems from the 'including but not limited to' language. That suggests you're trying to capture more than what's specifically listed, which creates ambiguity. UCC Article 9 personal property descriptions need to be definitive.
0 coins
Savanna Franklin
•So I should remove that language completely? Just describe exactly what's being financed?
0 coins
Isaiah Cross
•Exactly. Describe the specific categories of equipment securing the loan. No catch-all language.
0 coins
Kiara Greene
Try this description: 'Manufacturing and metalworking equipment including CNC machines, lathes, milling equipment, and related production tooling located at [address].' Specific enough to satisfy Article 9 but broad enough to cover your collateral base.
0 coins
Savanna Franklin
•That sounds much better than my original attempt. Should I include the equipment location in the description?
0 coins
Kiara Greene
•Location helps with identification but isn't always required. Check your state's specific requirements.
0 coins
Evelyn Kelly
•I always include location for equipment filings. Helps distinguish from other similar collateral the debtor might have.
0 coins
Paloma Clark
Certana.ai caught this exact issue on my last UCC Article 9 personal property filing. Their system flagged that my collateral description was too vague and suggested more specific language. Upload your draft UCC-1 and it'll show you exactly what needs fixing before you submit to SOS.
0 coins
Heather Tyson
•How accurate is their feedback? Don't want to rely on automated advice for something this important.
0 coins
Paloma Clark
•It's based on actual filing requirements and rejection patterns. Much more reliable than guessing what will work.
0 coins
Raul Neal
The real problem with UCC Article 9 personal property filings is every state interprets description requirements slightly differently. What works in Delaware might get rejected in California. Your attorney should know your specific state's quirks.
0 coins
Savanna Franklin
•Unfortunately he's unreachable for another week and we need this filed ASAP. Any resources for state-specific requirements?
0 coins
Raul Neal
•Most SOS websites have sample descriptions or filing guides. Check yours first.
0 coins
Jenna Sloan
•The state filing office might also have a help desk that can review descriptions before submission.
0 coins
Christian Burns
Whatever you do, don't just resubmit with minor changes. I've seen people get multiple rejections because they didn't address the core description problem. Take time to craft a proper UCC Article 9 compliant description.
0 coins
Savanna Franklin
•Good point. Better to get it right the second time than keep getting bounced back.
0 coins
Christian Burns
•Exactly. Each rejection delays your perfection date and creates more stress with the lender.
0 coins
Sasha Reese
One more thing to check - make sure your debtor name exactly matches their legal entity name. Description issues often come bundled with name problems. UCC Article 9 personal property filings are unforgiving about these details.
0 coins
Savanna Franklin
•Name should be correct - pulled it directly from their articles of incorporation. But good reminder to double-check.
0 coins
Sasha Reese
•Smart approach. Amazing how many filings get rejected for simple name variations.
0 coins
Muhammad Hobbs
•I use Certana.ai for name verification too. Upload the charter documents and UCC-1 together and it flags any mismatches between them.
0 coins