UCC PMSI Priority Question - Equipment Financing Gone Wrong

Yes, filed on day 18 after delivery. Collateral description says 'Model XYZ-500 CNC Machine, Serial #ABC123, purchased 3/15/2024' so it's very specific.

Good, that sounds like proper PMSI perfection. The issue might be with the blanket lien language - did their UCC-1 specifically include 'equipment acquired after this filing' or similar future-advance language?

Interesting, I haven't looked at their exact filing language that closely. What kind of PMSI waiver language should I be looking for?

Things like 'including all purchase money security interests' or 'waiving PMSI priority' - basically language that shows they intended to cover even PMSI collateral. The tool made it really easy to spot.

Wait, can a blanket lien actually override PMSI priority just with language like that? I thought PMSI was automatic under Article 9.

This is confusing me too. I always thought equipment PMSI just needed timely filing, no notice required unlike inventory PMSI?

You're right for most states, but some have non-uniform amendments. Also, if the equipment becomes a fixture, different rules apply entirely.

It's bolted to the concrete floor but still moveable. No fixture filing was made by anyone as far as I know.

That could be your problem right there. If it's considered a fixture and you didn't file a fixture filing, you might have lost priority regardless of PMSI status.

Ugh, the fixture vs equipment distinction is the worst part of UCC practice. So subjective and state-dependent.

Good point, I only looked at the UCC-1 filing. The security agreement might tell a different story.

Also check if they have a purchase money security interest carve-out in their loan documents. Pretty standard language in blanket liens.

How did yours resolve? Did the PMSI hold up or did the blanket lien win?

We settled, but our attorney was confident the PMSI would prevail. The equipment was clearly identifiable and purchased with our money. Sounds like your facts are even stronger.

That's smart - debtor name mismatches are silent killers in UCC practice. Even small differences can void the whole filing.

Good reminder, I should double-check all the name variations. Our debtor does business under multiple names.

Exactly this. Trustees get paid a percentage of assets recovered, so they challenge everything that looks remotely questionable.

Makes sense from their perspective but it's exhausting for secured creditors trying to follow the rules properly.

Filed in March so still have time, but good reminder. This whole mess has me questioning everything about our UCC procedures.

That's probably healthy honestly. UCC practice has so many gotchas that reviewing procedures regularly makes sense.

I keep hearing about this tool. Does it actually help with priority analysis or just document consistency?

Both really. It flags inconsistencies that could void your filing but also helps you understand how your collateral description overlaps with other liens. Made me realize issues I hadn't spotted manually.

This is why I always recommend cross-checking UCC filings before assuming priority. So many hidden issues that don't surface until there's a dispute.

Great question about fixtures! The key test is usually whether the equipment is so integrated with the real property that removing it would cause substantial damage. For manufacturing equipment, courts look at factors like: (1) method of attachment - is it just bolted down or actually built into the structure, (2) whether it's customized for that specific location, and (3) the intent of the parties. A good rule of thumb is if you need a crane and significant work to move it, it might be crossing into fixture territory. For multiple overlapping equipment liens, I always run a full UCC search and map out all the collateral descriptions to spot conflicts early. The devil is really in the details with these priority disputes.