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 :)
Join the conversation
Join the conversation
Before you spend a fortune on legal fees, try running your documents through Certana.ai's verification tool. I uploaded our UCC-1 and equipment schedules and it flagged several potential UCC legal definition issues we hadn't noticed. Helped us prepare better arguments for our attorney and potentially saved thousands in discovery costs.
It cross-references your filings against your underlying agreements and highlights discrepancies that could create UCC legal definition vulnerabilities. Won't replace legal advice but gives you a good starting point for understanding potential issues.
Interesting. We're always looking for ways to catch filing problems before they become expensive legal disputes over UCC legal definition interpretations.
Your situation is actually pretty common - banks often challenge UCC legal definition compliance when they want leverage in loan negotiations. The key under UCC 9-108 is whether your description "reasonably identifies" the collateral, not whether it's perfectly detailed. "All equipment used in debtor's manufacturing operations" is actually pretty standard language that courts have upheld in similar cases. The fact that you have supporting loan documents listing specific equipment models and serial numbers strengthens your position significantly. Before amending your filing or agreeing to any loan modifications, I'd recommend having your attorney research recent decisions in Ohio courts on similar UCC legal definition disputes. Many times these challenges are more about creating negotiating pressure than actual legal deficiencies in your security interest.
Join the conversation
Bottom line: the UCC definition of security interest is broad enough to cover your situation, but make sure your collateral description is comprehensive and your security agreement specifically addresses both tangible and intangible components. Better to be over-inclusive than discover gaps later.
Thanks everyone. Sounds like the UCC definition of security isn't the issue - it's making sure our documentation properly describes everything within that scope.
Exactly. The UCC definition of security gives you the framework, but your specific documents need to fill in the details properly.
As someone who's dealt with similar mixed collateral situations, I'd suggest also considering whether any of the software components might be classified as fixtures if they become permanently integrated with the machinery. The UCC definition of security interest remains the same, but fixture perfection requirements could differ from regular equipment filings. Also, make sure your financing statement includes language about "accessions and additions" to cover any future software updates or equipment modifications that might fall under your security interest.
Join the conversation
This thread has been incredibly educational! As someone just starting out with secured transactions, I had no idea fixture filings were even a thing. The manufacturing equipment example really helps illustrate when you need to think beyond regular UCC-1 filings. What strikes me most is how the filing location depends entirely on who needs to find the information - real estate searchers vs UCC searchers. I'm curious though - are there any situations where the fixture determination isn't so clear-cut? Like equipment that could go either way? And when you're dealing with those borderline cases, is it better to err on the side of fixture filing for extra protection, or does that create other complications? Thanks to everyone who shared their real-world experiences - this kind of practical knowledge is exactly what you don't get from just reading the statutes!
Great questions about borderline cases! Yes, there are definitely situations where the fixture determination isn't clear-cut - like equipment that's heavy and sits on foundations but isn't actually bolted down, or modular equipment that's designed to be moved but happens to be in one location for years. In those gray area cases, you really need to look at all the factors: method of attachment, whether removal would cause damage, the parties' intent when installing, and how the equipment is adapted to the particular real estate. For borderline situations, I've seen different approaches - some lenders do file both types just to be safe (though as Paolo mentioned earlier, it's more expensive), while others pick one based on their best analysis and document their reasoning thoroughly. The key is being consistent in your approach and having a defensible rationale. State law variations also matter a lot in these borderline cases - some states have more specific fixture tests than others.
This has been such an enlightening discussion! As someone relatively new to secured transactions, I really appreciate how everyone broke down the fixture filing concept with real examples. The manufacturing equipment scenario makes it so much clearer than the abstract legal definitions I've been struggling with. What really clicked for me was understanding that it's about putting the filing where the right people will actually look for it - real estate professionals search real estate records, equipment lenders search UCC records. That audience-based logic makes the whole system make sense. I'm definitely going to bookmark this thread as a reference. One follow-up question though - when you're doing the legal description for the real estate, is there a standard format that works across most states, or does each jurisdiction have its own preferences? Thanks again to everyone who shared their practical experience!
Great question about legal descriptions! From my experience, there isn't really a universal standard format that works across all states - each jurisdiction tends to have its own preferences and requirements. Most places want a full legal description that would be sufficient to identify the property in a deed, which usually means metes and bounds descriptions, lot and block numbers, or township/range/section descriptions depending on how the area was originally surveyed. Some states are more flexible and might accept abbreviated legal descriptions, while others are really strict about matching exactly what's in the property records. I'd definitely recommend checking with the local filing office where you'll be filing - they often have samples or can tell you what format they prefer. County recorder's offices usually have staff who deal with this daily and can give you guidance on what will get accepted. It's one of those areas where a quick phone call can save you from getting a rejection and having to refile.
Join the conversation
The bottom line with UCC lien law is that first-in-time usually wins, but there are enough exceptions and complications that you might want to consult with a commercial law attorney if there's significant money at stake. Priority disputes can get expensive fast if they end up in court.
Smart approach. Having a basic understanding of UCC lien law helps you ask better questions when you talk to counsel.
Agreed. Understanding the fundamentals makes the attorney consultation more productive and cost-effective.
This thread has been incredibly helpful in clarifying UCC lien law basics. As someone new to secured transactions, I was always confused about whether multiple liens could exist on the same collateral. The distinction between perfection and priority that Natalie mentioned really clicked for me - multiple creditors can perfect their interests, but the first-to-file rule determines who gets paid first. I'm bookmarking this discussion for future reference, especially the points about checking for continuation statements, debtor name accuracy, and running comprehensive searches. Thanks to everyone who shared their experiences with lien priority disputes.
Welcome to the community, Isabella! This thread really is a goldmine for understanding UCC basics. I'm also relatively new to secured transactions and found myself in a similar position of confusion about multiple liens. The way everyone broke down the perfection vs. priority distinction made it so much clearer. I especially appreciated Noah's mention of the Certana.ai tool - seems like it could save a lot of headaches with document verification. Looking forward to learning more from this knowledgeable group!
Ezra Beard
Thanks everyone for all the input. I think I have enough to move forward with a detailed description including case number and specific legal theories. Really appreciate the practical advice - this forum is always more helpful than the official guidance documents.
0 coins
Statiia Aarssizan
•Let us know how it goes! Always interested to hear whether filings get accepted with these tricky collateral descriptions.
0 coins
Reginald Blackwell
•Good luck with the filing. And definitely consider using one of those document checking tools mentioned earlier - commercial tort descriptions are easy to mess up between different documents.
0 coins
Joy Olmedo
I've been handling commercial tort claim UCC filings for about 8 years now, and I'd strongly recommend including all the details you mentioned - case number, court, defendant name, and specific legal theories. The "minimum specificity" approach is risky because if your description is too vague, you could lose priority to a later filer who describes it more precisely. I usually use this format: "Commercial tort claims against [Defendant Name] arising from breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of funds occurring between [date range], as more particularly described in litigation pending in [Court Name], Case No. [Number], including all proceeds thereof." This gives you broad enough coverage to capture related claims while being specific enough to satisfy the filing office. Also, since you're looking at $2.8M in potential damages, the extra effort in drafting is definitely worth the protection.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Suwaidi
•This is really comprehensive advice, thank you! I like the format you suggested - it covers all the bases while being specific enough to avoid rejection. The point about priority is crucial too - hadn't really thought about the risk of a later filer with a more precise description potentially getting priority over a vague one. With $2.8M at stake, definitely worth the extra care in drafting. Do you typically include language about "proceeds thereof" for commercial tort claims, or is that more relevant for other types of collateral?
0 coins
Miguel Silva
•Proceeds language is absolutely essential for commercial tort claims! Settlement payments, judgments, insurance recoveries - these are often the actual sources of payment you'll be collecting from. I learned this lesson when a client's tort claim settled for $1.5M but our UCC filing didn't explicitly cover proceeds. We had to scramble to establish our security interest in the settlement funds. Now I always include "and all proceeds, products, and supporting obligations related thereto" in my commercial tort descriptions. Better safe than sorry when you're dealing with litigation that could resolve in various ways.
0 coins