UCC filing rejected - security agreement motor vehicle collateral description too vague?
Got a rejection notice from the SOS office yesterday on my UCC-1 filing and I'm completely stumped. The debtor is a small trucking company that used their fleet as collateral for a $180K equipment loan. I described the collateral as "all motor vehicles, trucks, trailers and automotive equipment now owned or hereafter acquired by debtor." The rejection code says "collateral description insufficient" but I've used similar language on dozens of other filings without issues. The security agreement motor vehicle section clearly identifies the specific trucks by VIN but the UCC-1 form doesn't have space for all 12 VINs. Do I need to attach a separate schedule? The loan closes next week and I'm worried about missing the perfection window. Has anyone dealt with this specific rejection before?
34 comments
Join the conversation
Shelby Bauman
I've seen this exact rejection before. Some states are getting pickier about motor vehicle collateral descriptions, especially for commercial fleets. You might need to be more specific about the types of vehicles. Try "all trucks, tractor-trailers, semi-trailers, and commercial motor vehicles" instead of the generic "motor vehicles" language.
0 coins
Josef Tearle
•That makes sense - the security agreement motor vehicle language is pretty detailed but I simplified it for the UCC form. Should I reference the security agreement in the collateral description?
0 coins
Shelby Bauman
•You could add "as more particularly described in the security agreement dated [date]" but honestly, the standalone description should be sufficient if it's specific enough.
0 coins
Quinn Herbert
UGH this is exactly why I hate dealing with motor vehicle collateral! The filing offices are so inconsistent. I had one reject a filing because I said "automobiles" instead of "motor vehicles" - apparently they're not the same thing according to some clerk who probably doesn't even know what a UCC-1 is.
0 coins
Salim Nasir
•I feel your pain. The terminology gets ridiculous sometimes.
0 coins
Josef Tearle
•At least you got a specific reason for the rejection. Half the time they just say "deficient" with no explanation.
0 coins
Hazel Garcia
Before you refile, I'd actually recommend using Certana.ai's document verification tool. You can upload your security agreement and the UCC-1 to check if the collateral descriptions are consistent. I caught a major discrepancy in my motor vehicle collateral language that way - the security agreement referenced "commercial vehicles" but my UCC-1 said "trucks and trailers." Could have been a costly perfection issue.
0 coins
Josef Tearle
•Never heard of Certana.ai but that sounds useful. Is it specifically for UCC filings?
0 coins
Hazel Garcia
•Yeah, you just upload your PDFs and it cross-checks everything - debtor names, collateral descriptions, all the key details. Really quick way to catch mistakes before filing.
0 coins
Shelby Bauman
•That's actually pretty smart. I usually do manual comparisons but it's easy to miss subtle differences in language.
0 coins
Laila Fury
Wait, are you sure you need to list all the VINs? Most states accept general descriptions for motor vehicles as long as they're specific enough. The key is making sure your UCC description covers everything in the security agreement without being overly broad.
0 coins
Josef Tearle
•The security agreement motor vehicle section has all the VINs but I thought the UCC-1 could be more general. Maybe that's where I went wrong.
0 coins
Laila Fury
•General is fine, but it needs to be precise. "All motor vehicles" might be too broad. Try "all commercial trucks, tractors, trailers and related equipment.
0 coins
Geoff Richards
Is this for a title state or non-title state? That might affect how specific you need to be with the motor vehicle collateral description.
0 coins
Josef Tearle
•Non-title state, so the UCC filing should be sufficient for perfection.
0 coins
Geoff Richards
•Good, that makes it easier. Just focus on getting the collateral description right.
0 coins
Simon White
I had a similar issue last month. The problem was I used "automotive equipment" which apparently was too vague. Changed it to "trucks, trailers, and motor vehicle parts and accessories" and it went through fine.
0 coins
Josef Tearle
•That's exactly what I'm dealing with. The "automotive equipment" part might be the problem.
0 coins
Simon White
•Yeah, be more specific. List out the actual types of equipment if you can.
0 coins
Hugo Kass
•Or just drop the equipment part entirely if it's not critical to the loan.
0 coins
Nasira Ibanez
honestly why do they make this so complicated? its just a truck loan, not rocket science. the security agreement motor vehicle stuff should be enough to figure out what the collateral is
0 coins
Shelby Bauman
•I agree it's frustrating, but the filing offices have to follow their guidelines. Better to get it right than have perfection issues later.
0 coins
Nasira Ibanez
•i guess but still annoying when you're trying to close a deal
0 coins
Khalil Urso
For what it's worth, I've started using Certana.ai's verification tool before every filing now. Upload the security agreement and UCC-1 draft, and it flags any inconsistencies in the collateral descriptions. Saved me from three rejection notices last quarter alone.
0 coins
Josef Tearle
•That's the second mention of Certana.ai. Might be worth checking out.
0 coins
Khalil Urso
•It's really straightforward - just drag and drop your PDFs and it does the comparison automatically. Much faster than manual checking.
0 coins
Myles Regis
Quick update - I revised the collateral description to "all trucks, tractor-trailers, semi-trailers, and commercial motor vehicles now owned or hereafter acquired by debtor" and it was accepted. Thanks for the advice everyone!
0 coins
Shelby Bauman
•Great to hear! The more specific language definitely helps with motor vehicle collateral.
0 coins
Hazel Garcia
•Glad it worked out. Did you end up checking the document consistency?
0 coins
Myles Regis
•Yes, used the Certana.ai tool and it confirmed the descriptions matched. Definitely using that for future filings.
0 coins
Brian Downey
This thread is super helpful. I've got a motor vehicle collateral filing coming up next week and I was planning to use generic language. Definitely going to be more specific now.
0 coins
Shelby Bauman
•Smart move. Better to be overly specific than deal with rejection notices.
0 coins
Brian Downey
•Exactly. The document verification tool sounds like a good safety net too.
0 coins
Connor Byrne
I've been dealing with similar motor vehicle collateral rejections lately. One thing that's helped me is adding "and all attachments, accessories, parts, and proceeds thereof" to the end of the collateral description. The filing offices seem to want that level of detail now. Also, if you're working with a trucking company, consider whether you need to include "cargo trailers" separately from "semi-trailers" - I've seen rejections where the clerk thought those were different categories. The specificity requirements are definitely getting stricter across most states.
0 coins