Wyoming UCC Article 9 filing requirements - collateral description specificity question
Working on a UCC-1 filing in Wyoming and running into some confusion about Article 9 collateral description requirements. Our equipment financing deal involves construction machinery worth about $850K and I'm getting conflicting advice on how specific the collateral description needs to be. Some sources say Wyoming follows the 'reasonably identifies' standard while others mention stricter requirements. The debtor operates across state lines so we need to make sure this filing will hold up if we need to enforce. Has anyone dealt with Wyoming's interpretation of Article 9 collateral description standards recently? The SOS website isn't entirely clear on whether generic descriptions like 'all equipment' are sufficient or if we need serial numbers and detailed specifications. This is for a regional bank and we can't afford to have the security interest challenged later due to inadequate description.
35 comments
Join the conversation
Anastasia Kuznetsov
Wyoming generally follows the standard UCC Article 9 'reasonably identifies' test for collateral descriptions. You don't need serial numbers unless it's consumer goods or specific circumstances require it. For commercial equipment financing, 'all equipment owned by debtor and hereafter acquired' is typically sufficient in Wyoming. The key is that a third party reviewing the filing could understand what collateral is covered.
0 coins
Sean Fitzgerald
•This is reassuring - we were overthinking the description requirements. Our attorney was pushing for extremely detailed descriptions but sounds like Wyoming keeps it reasonable for commercial transactions.
0 coins
Zara Khan
•Just be careful with after-acquired property clauses in Wyoming. They have some specific language preferences that differ slightly from other states I've filed in.
0 coins
MoonlightSonata
I've handled dozens of Wyoming UCC filings and ran into issues when descriptions were too vague. Wyoming courts have been stricter than some other states on the 'reasonably identifies' standard, especially for high-value collateral like yours. Consider including equipment categories at minimum - 'construction equipment including but not limited to excavators, bulldozers, cranes' etc. Better safe than sorry with an $850K deal.
0 coins
Mateo Gonzalez
•Good point about Wyoming being stricter. We had a filing challenged in Cheyenne a few years back over vague collateral descriptions and it was not fun.
0 coins
Nia Williams
•How detailed should the categories be? We have everything from small tools to major earthmoving equipment in our collateral package.
0 coins
MoonlightSonata
•For your situation I'd list major categories separately. Tools under $5K can be grouped as 'tools and equipment' but the big machinery should be categorized by type. Wyoming filing fees are reasonable so the extra specificity is worth it.
0 coins
Luca Ricci
Had a similar issue last month with a Wyoming filing. After going back and forth with descriptions, I discovered Certana.ai's document verification tool. You can upload your UCC-1 draft along with the loan agreement and it automatically flags potential collateral description mismatches. Saved me from filing something that wouldn't have properly secured the equipment categories we needed. Really streamlined the process.
0 coins
Aisha Mohammed
•Interesting - how does that work exactly? Does it compare the UCC description against the loan documents?
0 coins
Luca Ricci
•Yes exactly. Upload both PDFs and it cross-references collateral descriptions, catches inconsistencies, and flags potential gaps in coverage. Much faster than manually comparing documents page by page.
0 coins
Ethan Campbell
Wyoming Secretary of State portal has been glitchy lately with UCC filings. Make sure you save your work frequently and double-check the debtor name formatting. They're very particular about exact legal names matching business registration records.
0 coins
Yuki Watanabe
•Oh god yes, the debtor name matching is brutal in Wyoming. One extra comma or abbreviation difference and they'll reject the whole filing.
0 coins
Carmen Sanchez
•Is there a way to verify the exact legal name format before filing? Their business entity search isn't the most user-friendly.
0 coins
Ethan Campbell
•I usually pull the Articles of Incorporation or certificate of good standing to get the exact legal name. Wyoming is very literal about matching what's on file with the state.
0 coins
Andre Dupont
Article 9 in Wyoming allows reasonable flexibility but don't go too generic. Your $850K deal deserves proper protection. I'd recommend something like 'all construction and earthmoving equipment owned by debtor, including without limitation excavators, bulldozers, graders, loaders, and all related attachments and accessories, whether now owned or hereafter acquired.' This covers the bases without being overly burdensome.
0 coins
Zoe Papadakis
•That's a good middle ground description. Specific enough to identify the collateral type but broad enough to cover variations and future acquisitions.
0 coins
ThunderBolt7
•Should we also include a clause about proceeds and products of the equipment? Wyoming's treatment of proceeds can be tricky.
0 coins
Andre Dupont
•Definitely include proceeds language. Wyoming follows standard Article 9 proceeds rules but explicit mention in the filing provides clearer notice to third parties.
0 coins
Jamal Edwards
One thing to watch in Wyoming - they process UCC filings pretty quickly but rejections can be cryptic. If your collateral description doesn't meet their standards, you might just get a generic rejection notice without specific guidance on what to fix.
0 coins
Mei Chen
•This happened to us twice before we figured out the issue was in our debtor name format, not the collateral description we thought was the problem.
0 coins
Liam O'Sullivan
•The rejection notices need improvement statewide. Half the time you're guessing what triggered the rejection.
0 coins
Amara Okonkwo
For what it's worth, I've been using Certana.ai to double-check UCC consistency before filing and it's caught several potential issues. Upload your loan docs and UCC draft - it verifies everything aligns properly including collateral descriptions, debtor names, and filing details. Especially helpful for multi-state deals where you need consistency across different filing requirements.
0 coins
Giovanni Marino
•Does it handle Wyoming's specific requirements or is it more generic UCC checking?
0 coins
Amara Okonkwo
•It's comprehensive UCC verification - catches the standard Article 9 issues that apply in Wyoming and other states. Really helpful for avoiding the back-and-forth with SOS offices over filing problems.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Sayed
Wyoming Article 9 implementation is pretty standard but their filing system can be particular about formatting. Make sure your collateral description uses consistent terminology throughout and matches any security agreement language. The courts there have upheld reasonable descriptions but they expect internal consistency in the documents.
0 coins
Dylan Hughes
•Good point about consistency between the UCC filing and security agreement. We've seen challenges where the collateral was described differently in related documents.
0 coins
NightOwl42
•Internal document consistency is huge. Even small wording differences can create problems if someone challenges the filing later.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Sayed
•Exactly. Wyoming courts expect the paperwork to tell a coherent story. If your UCC-1 says 'construction equipment' but your security agreement lists 'heavy machinery,' that inconsistency could be problematic.
0 coins
Sofia Rodriguez
UPDATE: Thanks everyone for the advice. We ended up going with a detailed but reasonable description listing major equipment categories. Used one of those document checking tools mentioned here to verify consistency between our UCC-1 and loan agreement before filing. Wyoming SOS accepted it without issues and we got our filing number within 24 hours. The extra time spent on the description was definitely worth the peace of mind.
0 coins
Dmitry Ivanov
•Great outcome! Wyoming's processing time has really improved over the past year.
0 coins
Ava Thompson
•Which document checking tool did you end up using? We have a similar filing coming up.
0 coins
Sofia Rodriguez
•Used Certana.ai - just upload your PDFs and it flags any inconsistencies. Saved us from potential problems and gave the bank confidence in our filing accuracy.
0 coins
Miguel Herrera
Wyoming's been pretty reliable for UCC filings compared to some other states I deal with. Their Article 9 interpretation stays close to the model code without too many state-specific quirks. Sounds like you handled it right with the detailed collateral description.
0 coins
Zainab Ali
•Agreed - Wyoming keeps it straightforward compared to states that have added their own complications to Article 9.
0 coins
Connor Murphy
•The straightforward approach is refreshing. Some states make UCC filing way more complicated than it needs to be.
0 coins