UCC Document Community

Ask the community...

  • DO post questions about your issues.
  • DO answer questions and support each other.
  • DO post tips & tricks to help folks.
  • DO NOT post call problems here - there is a support tab at the top for that :)

Bottom line for your CNC situation: primary use = manufacturing = equipment classification. The occasional sales don't change that fundamental relationship. List as equipment and you're good to go.

0 coins

Perfect, that's the confirmation I needed. Going with equipment classification for the CNC machines. Thanks everyone for the help understanding Article 9 collateral types!

0 coins

Mateo Sanchez

•

Great discussion on the primary use test! One thing to add - when documenting your rationale for equipment classification, consider including a brief description in your security agreement about how the CNC machines are "used or bought for use primarily in business operations" rather than "held for sale or lease." This language mirrors the UCC definitions and can help support your classification decision if it's ever questioned. Also, for mixed-use assets like yours, some attorneys recommend including a clause that covers "all replacements, substitutions, and proceeds" to catch any scenario where equipment might temporarily shift categories.

0 coins

Jenna Sloan

•

This is really valuable advice about the documentation approach! I hadn't thought about explicitly using the UCC definitional language in the security agreement itself. The "replacements, substitutions, and proceeds" clause sounds like great protection too - would that cover scenarios where they trade in old CNC machines for newer models? Also, when you mention "if it's ever questioned," are you thinking more about disputes with other creditors or issues during enforcement proceedings?

0 coins

NeonNova

•

Bottom line - if you're going to buy UCC lists, treat them as one piece of a larger lead generation strategy, not a silver bullet. The real value comes from how you use the data, not just having the data itself.

0 coins

Zainab Ismail

•

This thread has been incredibly helpful. Sounds like I need to temper my expectations and focus more on data quality than quantity. Thanks everyone for the practical advice.

0 coins

Yuki Tanaka

•

Good luck with whatever approach you choose. Feel free to circle back and let us know how it works out.

0 coins

Michael Adams

•

As someone new to equipment financing, this discussion has been eye-opening about the complexities of UCC data sourcing. I'm curious about the timing aspect - when you're targeting businesses with existing UCC filings for refinancing opportunities, how do you determine the optimal time to reach out? Is there a sweet spot in the loan lifecycle where borrowers are most receptive to refinancing discussions, or does it vary significantly by industry and equipment type?

0 coins

Dmitry Popov

•

Great question! From my experience, the timing really depends on the original loan structure. For traditional 5-7 year equipment loans, businesses often start considering refinancing around the 18-24 month mark if rates have dropped or their credit profile has improved. Construction equipment tends to have shorter cycles due to project-based cash flow, so they might be open to discussions earlier. I've found that monitoring payment histories through credit reports alongside UCC data helps identify the right timing - companies making payments on time but showing cash flow stress elsewhere are often prime refinancing candidates.

0 coins

Luca Romano

•

Thanks everyone! This is exactly what I needed. Sounds like the main things are: get debtor name exactly right, be specific with collateral descriptions, use the electronic portal, watch for continuation deadlines, and file terminations when loans are paid off. I feel much more prepared now.

0 coins

Paolo Conti

•

You've got it! Those are the key points that trip up most people.

0 coins

GalaxyGazer

•

Good luck with your equipment financing. Texas is actually one of the easier states once you know the basics.

0 coins

Just wanted to add something that hasn't been mentioned yet - if you're doing multiple equipment purchases over time, consider whether to file separate UCC-1s for each transaction or use a blanket filing that covers future advances. Texas allows both approaches, but the blanket method can save filing fees if you're planning several equipment financings. Just make sure your loan agreements properly reference the UCC filing. Also, if your equipment will be moved between Texas locations, include language about "wherever located" in your collateral description to maintain perfection when assets move.

0 coins

Rami Samuels

•

This is really helpful advice about blanket filings! @Keisha Robinson since you mentioned multiple equipment purchases, this could be perfect for your situation. The wherever "located language" is especially important - I ve'seen companies get tripped up when they move equipment between facilities and suddenly their security interest isn t'properly perfected at the new location. Austin s'right that it can save significant filing fees if you re'planning several transactions.

0 coins

This is exactly the kind of detailed practical guidance I was hoping for! I'm taking notes on all these recommendations. Quick question about the UCC-3 termination filing - once we make the redemption payment and the lender files the termination statement, is there typically a standard timeframe they have to file it? I want to make sure we're not left in limbo with an unreleased lien on the equipment. Also, has anyone encountered situations where the lender tries to delay filing the UCC-3 even after receiving proper redemption payment? Want to be prepared for potential pushback and know what remedies we might have.

0 coins

Avery Davis

•

Great questions! In most states, lenders have a "reasonable time" obligation to file the UCC-3 termination after receiving redemption payment, though the UCC doesn't specify exact timeframes. I typically see anywhere from 10-30 days as standard practice. If they delay filing, you have a few remedies: you can file the termination yourself with proof of redemption payment, or seek damages for any harm caused by the delay (like inability to refinance or sell the equipment). Some practitioners include a specific termination deadline in their redemption notice to create a paper trail if enforcement becomes necessary. Also worth noting that under UCC 9-513, if you send a proper termination demand after redemption and they fail to comply within 20 days, you may be entitled to $500 statutory damages plus actual damages. Document everything and don't let them drag their feet on the filing!

0 coins

KylieRose

•

This has been an incredibly comprehensive discussion - thank you all for sharing your practical experience! As someone new to UCC redemption but familiar with other secured transaction work, I'm struck by how many moving pieces there are beyond just the basic redemption payment calculation. A few follow-up questions based on what I'm reading: First, regarding the document verification tools that Nia and Zoe mentioned (Certana.ai), has anyone used similar services for other types of UCC work, or is this mainly beneficial for complex redemption scenarios? Second, I'm curious about the interaction between redemption rights and any workout agreements that might be in place - if a borrower is in an existing forbearance or modification agreement, does that affect the redemption process or timeline? Finally, for those who've handled multiple redemptions, are there any red flags or warning signs in the original security documentation that might complicate the redemption process that we should look for upfront? Really appreciate everyone's willingness to share real-world insights!

0 coins

Great questions! I've actually used Certana.ai for regular UCC-1 filings and amendments, not just redemptions. It's particularly helpful when you're dealing with complex collateral descriptions or multiple related filings - catches things like inconsistent debtor names across documents that you might miss in manual review. For your second question about workout agreements, that's a crucial point. Active forbearance or modification agreements can definitely complicate redemption timing and amounts. The workout agreement might have suspended certain default remedies or changed payment terms, which could affect what constitutes the proper redemption amount. I'd recommend reviewing any workout docs carefully to see if they specifically address redemption rights. As for red flags in security documentation, watch out for: unclear or overly broad collateral descriptions, multiple filing jurisdictions for the same collateral, and cross-default provisions that might bring in other debts. Also check if there are any subordination agreements or intercreditor arrangements that could complicate the redemption process.

0 coins

Emma Davis

•

This thread is exactly why I triple check all my debtor names before filing anything. Massachusetts doesn't mess around with UCC-3 rejections.

0 coins

Malik Johnson

•

Smart practice. Rejection delays can mess up loan closing timelines.

0 coins

Lesson learned for sure. Will be more careful with name matching going forward.

0 coins

Welcome to the UCC filing headache club! I've been dealing with Massachusetts filings for about 3 years now and this exact scenario comes up more often than you'd think. The comma vs no comma issue is surprisingly common - seems like it happens when companies get more formal with their documentation over time. One tip I've learned: always keep a copy of your original UCC search results in your file so you can quickly reference the exact debtor name format when filing amendments or terminations. Also, if you're dealing with this regularly, some of the document checking tools mentioned here can really save time and prevent these rejections upfront. Good luck with the amendment route!

0 coins

Thanks for the warm welcome to the club! 😅 That's a great tip about keeping the original UCC search results handy. I can definitely see how this comma situation would trip up a lot of people, especially when companies evolve their documentation standards over the years. Really appreciate everyone's input on this thread - sounds like the amendment route is definitely the way to go even though it means extra fees and time. Better safe than sorry with Massachusetts!

0 coins

Prev1...1516171819...684Next