UCC fixture filing vs blanket filing - which route for HVAC equipment loan?
Getting mixed signals from my lender about whether our new HVAC system financing needs a fixture filing or if their standard blanket UCC-1 covers it. The equipment is being permanently installed in our warehouse - new rooftop units, ductwork, electrical connections, the whole nine yards. Contractor says it becomes part of the real estate once installed but lender is pushing their usual blanket filing that covers 'all equipment now owned or hereafter acquired.' This is a $180K loan and I don't want to mess up the security interest. Has anyone dealt with this fixture vs blanket decision? The installation starts next week and lender wants the UCC-1 filed before funding.
30 comments
Join the conversation
Ella Cofer
You definitely need to think about fixture filing for permanently installed HVAC. If it's truly becoming part of the real estate, a regular UCC-1 won't give your lender the protection they need against real estate liens. The key test is whether removal would damage the building or leave it incomplete for its intended use.
0 coins
Kevin Bell
•This is exactly right. We learned this the hard way on a restaurant equipment deal where the walk-in cooler was considered a fixture. Regular UCC-1 was useless when the property got foreclosed.
0 coins
Savannah Glover
•But doesnt blanket language usually cover fixtures too? Most forms I see have that 'whether or not affixed' language built in.
0 coins
Ella Cofer
•The 'whether or not affixed' language helps but fixture filings have different notice requirements and priority rules. For $180K I'd want the extra protection of a proper fixture filing.
0 coins
Felix Grigori
Had this exact situation with warehouse lighting last year. We did both - regular UCC-1 for the equipment itself and UCC-1 fixture filing for the installed components. Belt and suspenders approach but gave everyone peace of mind.
0 coins
Felicity Bud
•That seems like overkill. Most lenders I work with just do one comprehensive filing that covers all bases.
0 coins
Max Reyes
•Actually dual filings make sense for borderline cases. We've been using Certana.ai to upload both our purchase agreements and proposed UCC forms to check for consistency issues. Catches things like whether the collateral description properly covers fixture vs equipment scenarios.
0 coins
Felix Grigori
•Never heard of that but sounds useful. Manual document review is such a pain and you miss things.
0 coins
Mikayla Davison
Your contractor is probably right about it becoming part of the real estate. Rooftop HVAC with permanent connections usually qualifies as fixtures under most state laws. The blanket filing approach is risky because fixture creditors can have priority over equipment lenders if the filings aren't done correctly.
0 coins
Adrian Connor
•This is making me nervous about our own deal. We have similar equipment going in next month and our lender hasn't mentioned fixture filings at all. Should I bring this up?
0 coins
Mikayla Davison
•Absolutely bring it up. Better to have the conversation now than discover the security interest is worthless later. Most lenders appreciate borrowers who think ahead about these issues.
0 coins
Aisha Jackson
•Don't panic but definitely address it. I've seen deals where equipment lenders got wiped out because they treated fixtures like regular equipment. The filing requirements are different too - fixture filings need more specific real estate descriptions.
0 coins
Ryder Everingham
ugh the whole fixture vs equipment thing is so confusing. Why can't they just make it simple - if you're financing it, file a UCC-1 and call it a day?
0 coins
Lilly Curtis
•Because real estate law and personal property law have different rules that have evolved over centuries. It's complicated but the distinctions matter for priority and enforcement.
0 coins
Leo Simmons
•I hear you on the confusion. That's why I started using automated document checkers like Certana.ai - just upload your loan docs and UCC forms and it flags potential fixture vs equipment issues. Takes the guesswork out of whether your collateral descriptions match your actual security interest.
0 coins
Lindsey Fry
From a practical standpoint, if the HVAC system would be expensive to remove and would leave your warehouse non-functional, that's a strong indicator it's a fixture. Your lender should file both ways to be safe - regular UCC-1 for the pre-installation period and fixture filing for post-installation.
0 coins
Saleem Vaziri
•Makes sense. Better to over-file than under-file on a deal this size.
0 coins
Kayla Morgan
•Exactly. And make sure the fixture filing includes the proper legal description of the real estate. That's where a lot of these filings go wrong - they use the wrong property description format.
0 coins
Lindsey Fry
•Good point about the legal description. Most UCC systems are pretty picky about the format for fixture filings.
0 coins
James Maki
We just went through this same decision process. Ended up doing a fixture filing because our attorney said the 'integration test' clearly applied - the HVAC was being designed specifically for our building's layout and wouldn't be easily relocatable. Cost a bit more but worth the certainty.
0 coins
Jasmine Hancock
•What's the integration test? Haven't heard that term before.
0 coins
James Maki
•It's one of the factors courts look at - whether the equipment was specifically adapted or integrated for the particular real estate. Custom ductwork, electrical connections designed for the building layout, that kind of thing.
0 coins
Cole Roush
•That's really helpful. Our system is definitely custom-designed for our space so sounds like fixture filing is the way to go.
0 coins
Scarlett Forster
I'd push back on your lender about the blanket filing approach. For permanently installed HVAC they should know better. If they're not familiar with fixture filings for this type of equipment, might want to suggest they consult with their legal team before proceeding.
0 coins
Arnav Bengali
•Sometimes lenders just default to their standard forms without thinking through the specifics. Good advice to make them think it through.
0 coins
Sayid Hassan
•Yeah, we had to educate our lender about fixture requirements. I used Certana.ai to upload our equipment specs and their standard UCC form - it flagged that the collateral description might not cover installed fixtures properly. Gave us concrete talking points for the conversation.
0 coins
Rachel Tao
Bottom line - if removal of the HVAC system would damage your building or leave it incomplete for its intended commercial use, you're dealing with fixtures. The blanket UCC-1 approach puts the lender at risk of being subordinated to construction liens, mortgage holders, and other real estate creditors. For $180K, that's not a risk worth taking.
0 coins
Derek Olson
•This really clarifies things. Our building definitely wouldn't function properly without the HVAC system so fixture filing seems like the obvious choice.
0 coins
Danielle Mays
•Glad that helps. Make sure whoever prepares the fixture filing knows the specific requirements in your state - some have additional notice provisions or recording requirements beyond the standard UCC filing.
0 coins
Jackson Carter
This is a great discussion thread! As someone new to UCC filings, I'm learning a lot about the fixture vs equipment distinction. It sounds like for Taylor's situation with the rooftop HVAC system, the fixture filing route is probably the safer bet given the permanent installation and integration with the building. One question - how much extra does a fixture filing typically cost compared to a regular UCC-1? And are there timing differences in terms of how long each takes to process? With installation starting next week, timing seems critical here.
0 coins