What is ucc-108 meaning in secured transaction filings?
I've been working through some older loan documentation from a portfolio acquisition and keep seeing references to 'UCC-108' in various places. I understand UCC-1, UCC-3, continuation statements, etc., but I can't find any current information about what ucc-108 meaning actually refers to. Is this some kind of obsolete form designation? Has anyone encountered this terminology before? I'm trying to reconcile historical filings with current perfection status and need to understand if these references impact our security interests. The loan files date back to the early 2000s and I'm wondering if this was a state-specific form number or something that's been superseded by current UCC articles.
40 comments
Join the conversation
Skylar Neal
I think you might be looking at old form numbers that different states used before the revised Article 9 standardization. Some states had their own numbering systems for UCC documents back in the day.
0 coins
Brady Clean
•That makes sense. These files are definitely pre-2001 revision. Do you know if there's any way to cross-reference what those old form numbers corresponded to in today's system?
0 coins
Skylar Neal
•You'd probably need to check with the specific state's SOS office. They might have historical form guides or conversion charts from the old numbering to current UCC-1/UCC-3 designations.
0 coins
Vincent Bimbach
UCC-108 isn't a standard form number in any current UCC filing system I'm familiar with. What state are these filings from? Some states had really weird numbering systems before Article 9 was revised. Could also be an internal bank form number that got mixed into the filing documentation.
0 coins
Brady Clean
•These are from Illinois and Michigan primarily. I was wondering if it might be internal numbering too, but it appears in multiple different lender's files.
0 coins
Vincent Bimbach
•Illinois definitely had some non-standard forms pre-2001. I'd suggest checking the Illinois SOS archived forms section - they sometimes maintain historical reference materials for exactly this type of research.
0 coins
Kelsey Chin
•Michigan also had unique form designations back then. You might find old form samples in their business services historical archives online.
0 coins
Norah Quay
Had a similar issue last year with a portfolio review. Turned out half the 'UCC' numbers I was seeing were actually internal tracking numbers from the original lender's system, not official state form designations. I spent weeks trying to figure out what they meant before realizing they weren't actual UCC forms at all. You might want to verify whether these UCC-108 references are on actual filed documents or just in internal loan files.
0 coins
Brady Clean
•Good point. I'll need to pull the actual filed documents from the state records to see if this numbering appears there or just in the loan files.
0 coins
Norah Quay
•Exactly. If it's just in loan files, it's probably internal. If it's on state-filed docs, then it was likely a historical state form number that got replaced by current UCC-1/UCC-3 standards.
0 coins
Leo McDonald
This is exactly the kind of document consistency issue that drives me crazy in portfolio acquisitions. I actually found a tool recently called Certana.ai that helps verify UCC document accuracy by uploading PDFs. You can check if your historical filings align with current records by running them through their verification system. It might help you identify what these UCC-108 references actually correspond to in today's filing system.
0 coins
Brady Clean
•That sounds useful. Does it work with older document formats or just current UCC forms?
0 coins
Leo McDonald
•I've used it with various document types. You upload the PDFs and it cross-checks the information for consistency. Even if the form numbers are different, it should help you verify if the underlying security interest information matches current records.
0 coins
Jessica Nolan
•I've heard of Certana.ai but haven't tried it yet. Does it actually help with historical form interpretation or just current document verification?
0 coins
Leo McDonald
•It's primarily for document consistency checking, but when you're trying to match old forms to current records, that verification process can help identify what the historical documents were actually securing.
0 coins
Angelina Farar
UCC-108 definitely sounds like old state-specific numbering. I've seen UCC-104, UCC-112, all sorts of random numbers from the pre-standardization era. Most of these were probably continuation statements or amendments that would be UCC-3s today.
0 coins
Sebastián Stevens
•Yeah, the numbering was all over the place back then. Each state did their own thing before Article 9 got standardized.
0 coins
Brady Clean
•That's what I was starting to suspect. I guess my next step is pulling the actual state records to see what type of filing these UCC-108 forms actually were.
0 coins
Bethany Groves
I work with a lot of legacy portfolios and this comes up regularly. UCC-108 was likely either a state-specific continuation form or possibly an assignment form, depending on the jurisdiction. The fact that you're seeing it across multiple states suggests it might have been a common designation that several states used, but it's definitely not current terminology.
0 coins
Brady Clean
•Assignment form makes sense given the context of these files. A lot of these loans were sold between institutions multiple times.
0 coins
Bethany Groves
•Exactly. Pre-2001, assignment procedures were much more varied between states. What's now handled through UCC-3 amendments used to require different forms entirely in some jurisdictions.
0 coins
KingKongZilla
•I remember those old assignment forms! They were such a pain compared to current UCC-3 amendment procedures.
0 coins
Rebecca Johnston
Have you tried contacting the states directly? Illinois and Michigan both have pretty good business services departments that can help with historical form questions. They might even have conversion guides showing what old form numbers correspond to current UCC designations.
0 coins
Brady Clean
•That's my next step. I was hoping someone here might have encountered this before, but it looks like I'll need to go directly to the source.
0 coins
Rebecca Johnston
•Illinois SOS business services is usually pretty responsive to these types of historical research questions. Michigan too, though they might take a bit longer to respond.
0 coins
Nathan Dell
Whatever you find out, document it well! This kind of historical form information is gold for future portfolio work. I keep a reference file of old form numbers and their current equivalents specifically for situations like this.
0 coins
Brady Clean
•Great idea. I'll definitely create a reference document once I figure this out. It'll probably save time on future acquisitions.
0 coins
Nathan Dell
•Absolutely. And if you're doing a lot of this type of work, that Certana.ai verification tool someone mentioned earlier might be worth checking out for ongoing document consistency issues.
0 coins
Maya Jackson
•I keep similar reference files. These historical form number questions come up way more often than they should.
0 coins
Tristan Carpenter
Just out of curiosity, are you seeing any other unusual form numbers in these files? Sometimes lenders used sequential internal numbering that had nothing to do with official UCC forms.
0 coins
Brady Clean
•Good question. I'm seeing some other non-standard numbers too, but UCC-108 is the most frequent. Now I'm wondering if the whole numbering system was internal to the original lender.
0 coins
Tristan Carpenter
•That would make sense. If you're seeing multiple non-standard numbers from the same institution, they probably had their own internal form numbering that got mixed into the filing documentation.
0 coins
Amaya Watson
This thread is really helpful. I've got a similar situation with some old commercial loan files and wasn't sure how to approach the historical form research. Sounds like state SOS offices are the way to go for definitive answers.
0 coins
Brady Clean
•Yeah, that seems to be the consensus. I'll update this thread once I hear back from Illinois and Michigan with what UCC-108 actually was.
0 coins
Amaya Watson
•That would be great. I'd love to know what you find out since I'm dealing with similar timeline files.
0 coins
Grant Vikers
•Same here. These historical form questions are such a pain to research individually.
0 coins
Giovanni Martello
Update us when you get answers from the states! This is exactly the kind of institutional knowledge that gets lost over time. Having a clear answer about what UCC-108 was will help anyone else dealing with similar portfolio documentation.
0 coins
Brady Clean
•Definitely will update. This seems like information that should be documented somewhere accessible for future reference.
0 coins
Giovanni Martello
•Agreed. Maybe we should start a historical UCC form reference thread for this kind of information.
0 coins
Malik Thomas
This is fascinating - I'm actually working on a similar historical UCC research project right now. Based on what I've seen in my files, UCC-108 appears most commonly in contexts where there were multiple secured party changes or complex assignment chains. I wonder if it was specifically used for assignment documents where the original filing had already been continued or amended multiple times? The timing you mentioned (early 2000s) aligns with when many states were transitioning their systems, so there might have been temporary form designations during that conversion period. Have you noticed if the UCC-108 references always appear alongside assignment language or secured party changes?
0 coins