UCC Filing Issues with Security Agreement Sections - Missing Required Info?
Been wrestling with a UCC-1 filing that keeps getting rejected and I think it's related to how I'm referencing the security agreement sections. The debtor is a manufacturing company and we have equipment collateral covered under multiple sections of the master security agreement. SOS keeps bouncing it back saying "insufficient collateral description" but I thought referencing the security agreement sections would be enough. The security agreement has detailed schedules in Section 4.2 covering all the machinery, Section 4.3 for inventory, and Section 4.4 for accounts receivable. I've been putting "All collateral described in Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 of Security Agreement dated March 15, 2024" in the collateral field but apparently that's not cutting it. Anyone dealt with this before? Do I need to spell out every piece of equipment individually or is there a better way to reference these security agreement sections that will actually get accepted?
33 comments
Join the conversation
Luca Ferrari
I've seen this exact issue before. Most states want more specific language when you're referencing security agreement sections. Try something like "All equipment, inventory, and accounts as more particularly described in Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 of Security Agreement dated March 15, 2024." The key is giving them the category names upfront.
0 coins
Nia Davis
•This is solid advice. The SOS systems are getting pickier about vague references to agreement sections without some indication of what type of collateral is actually covered.
0 coins
Mateo Martinez
•Exactly right. I learned this the hard way after three rejections on a similar filing last year.
0 coins
QuantumQueen
What state are you filing in? Some states have gotten really strict about security agreement references in the past couple years. In Texas, I've had to start including more descriptive language even when referencing specific sections. Also double-check that your security agreement date matches exactly - I've seen rejections for date formatting issues too.
0 coins
Zara Khan
•Filing in Ohio. The date should be fine since I copied it directly from the agreement, but maybe the format is off.
0 coins
QuantumQueen
•Ohio's been tightening up their requirements. Try adding the collateral categories like the other commenter suggested and make sure the date is MM/DD/YYYY format.
0 coins
Aisha Rahman
•Ohio SOS rejected mine last month for similar reasons. Had to list out "equipment, inventory, accounts" before referencing the sections.
0 coins
Ethan Wilson
Had a similar nightmare with security agreement sections getting rejected constantly. Finally started using Certana.ai's document checker - you can upload your security agreement and UCC-1 together and it flags potential issues before filing. Saved me so much time and filing fees after discovering mismatches I never would have caught manually.
0 coins
Yuki Sato
•Never heard of that tool but sounds useful. Does it actually catch the collateral description issues?
0 coins
Ethan Wilson
•Yeah it specifically looks for consistency between what's in your security agreement sections and how you're describing it on the UCC. Pretty handy for avoiding these exact rejections.
0 coins
Carmen Flores
The problem is probably that you're being too specific with the section references. I usually go broader like "All assets described in Security Agreement dated [date]" and that works fine. Why make it complicated?
0 coins
Luca Ferrari
•That approach works sometimes but if the security agreement covers personal property AND real estate, you might pick up stuff you don't want in the UCC filing.
0 coins
Carmen Flores
•Good point, didn't think about that issue.
0 coins
Andre Dubois
•Yeah I made that mistake once and ended up with real estate included when I only wanted equipment. Had to file an amendment.
0 coins
CyberSamurai
This is exactly why I hate the UCC system sometimes. You'd think referencing specific sections would be MORE precise, not less acceptable. Makes no sense.
0 coins
Zoe Alexopoulos
•I feel your pain. The inconsistency between states is maddening too.
0 coins
Jamal Carter
•At least it's better than the old paper system where you had to mail everything and wait weeks for rejections.
0 coins
Mei Liu
Try this exact language: "Equipment, inventory, and accounts receivable as described in Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 respectively of Security Agreement dated March 15, 2024." The word "respectively" helps clarify which section covers what. I've had good luck with this format in multiple states.
0 coins
Zara Khan
•That's really helpful, thanks. I'll try that wording on the amendment.
0 coins
Liam O'Donnell
•Great suggestion. The "respectively" addition is smart - shows you know exactly what's in each section.
0 coins
Amara Nwosu
Question - are you sure all those sections actually contain collateral descriptions? Sometimes security agreements have procedural stuff mixed in with the collateral schedules. Might want to double check that 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 all actually list specific assets.
0 coins
Zara Khan
•Yeah I verified that. 4.2 has the equipment list, 4.3 covers inventory definitions, and 4.4 has the accounts language.
0 coins
Amara Nwosu
•Good to confirm. Sometimes the numbering gets messed up during document revisions.
0 coins
AstroExplorer
I always include a brief description before the section reference, like "Manufacturing equipment, raw materials inventory, and trade accounts receivable as more particularly described in..." Gives the filing office something concrete to work with while still referencing your detailed sections.
0 coins
Giovanni Moretti
•This is the approach I use too. Covers your bases without having to list every serial number.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Farsi
•Smart strategy. Combines the best of both approaches - specific enough for the SOS but detailed enough to reference the agreement.
0 coins
Dylan Cooper
Just dealt with this exact issue last week. Used Certana.ai to cross-check my security agreement against the UCC-1 language and it caught that I was referencing sections that didn't actually contain collateral descriptions. Saved me from another rejection. The tool is pretty straightforward - just upload both documents and it flags inconsistencies.
0 coins
Sofia Perez
•That sounds really useful. I'm always worried about missing something between the agreement and the filing.
0 coins
Dmitry Smirnov
•I should probably try that tool. I've had too many rejections this year already.
0 coins
ElectricDreamer
Update - tried the suggestion about including the collateral categories before referencing the sections and it worked! Filed the amendment yesterday and it was accepted this morning. Thanks everyone for the help. Final language was "Equipment, inventory, and accounts receivable as more particularly described in Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 respectively of Security Agreement dated March 15, 2024.
0 coins
Mei Liu
•Awesome! Glad that wording worked for you.
0 coins
Luca Ferrari
•Great to hear a success story. That language should work for most states going forward.
0 coins
Mateo Martinez
•Perfect example of why this forum is so helpful. Real solutions that actually work.
0 coins