UCC filing confusion with debtor trying to claim common law exemptions

Exactly this. I've seen this probably 6-7 times over the past few years. The courts consistently reject these arguments. Your UCC-1 is valid if it was filed correctly with accurate debtor information.

Wait, can they actually challenge the filing though? Like if they claim they never agreed to UCC governance, does that create problems for enforcement?

No, that's not how it works. The UCC applies to commercial transactions regardless of whether parties 'consent' to it. It's state law. You can't opt out by declaring yourself exempt.

That's interesting about the document checker. How does that work exactly? Do you just upload the PDFs?

Yeah, really simple. You upload your loan docs and UCC filing, and it automatically flags any inconsistencies in debtor names, filing numbers, collateral descriptions. Takes like 2 minutes and gives you confidence everything aligns properly.

This is actually smart advice. When borrowers get litigious, having ironclad documentation is crucial. Even small inconsistencies can become bigger problems in court.

47 pages?? That's dedication to being wrong lol

I'm not even exaggerating. It had footnotes and everything. He cited cases from the 1800s about gold standards. Complete waste of paper.

Did you actually have to respond to all that or could you just ignore it?

Our legal counsel said to acknowledge receipt but not engage with the substantive arguments. Responding in detail just encourages more of the same.

Good point about the name matching. I should double-check that. The filing was only last month so definitely not lapsed.

Yeah this is key. I've seen filings get challenged successfully when there were name discrepancies, even minor ones like missing 'LLC' or 'Inc.

Exactly. The UCC is very strict about debtor name accuracy. It's worth running a verification to make sure everything matches up perfectly.

If your original collateral description was adequate, I wouldn't file an amendment unless there's a specific issue. Amendments can sometimes create more problems than they solve.

That's what I was thinking. Don't want to poke the bear unnecessarily.

Agree with not amending unless necessary. Focus on making sure what you have is rock solid rather than changing it.

How reliable is that kind of automated checking? I'm always skeptical of software for legal documents.

It's actually really good for catching name inconsistencies and filing number mismatches. Obviously doesn't replace legal review but catches the technical errors that can cause problems.

I think I've heard of this. You just upload the PDFs and it compares everything automatically?

Yep, that's it. Upload your loan agreement and UCC filing, it flags any discrepancies. Super quick and gives you peace of mind.

This is the right answer. Don't get distracted by the noise, just make sure your paperwork is airtight.

Thanks, this is really helpful perspective. I think I was getting too caught up in their arguments instead of focusing on the fundamentals.

Exactly. These borrowers often sound more sophisticated than they are. Stick to the basics and you'll be fine.

Good advice. Documentation is everything in these situations.

Yeah, I learned this the hard way. Always document everything with difficult borrowers.

Not with properly filed UCC documents. The only times I've seen filings get invalidated is when there were legitimate technical errors, not because of sovereign citizen arguments.

Same here. The legal theory stuff never works, but technical filing errors definitely can cause problems.

That makes sense. So it really comes down to making sure the filing was done correctly in the first place.

That's a good threshold. Larger loans definitely justify extra verification steps.

I think I'm going to look into this. Better safe than sorry with this particular borrower.

Smart move. With difficult borrowers, you want to be absolutely certain your documentation is bulletproof.