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 :)

Amina Diop

Wyoming UCC statute interpretation for equipment financing continuation

Running into issues with a Wyoming UCC continuation filing that's coming up on its 5-year mark next month. Our equipment financing deal from 2020 has some collateral description language that might not align perfectly with current Wyoming UCC statute requirements. The original UCC-1 lists 'all machinery and equipment now owned or hereafter acquired' but I'm seeing conflicting info about whether Wyoming requires more specific descriptions for continuation filings. Has anyone dealt with Wyoming's interpretation of the UCC statute recently? The debtor operates a construction company with equipment across multiple counties and I want to make sure we don't lose perfection due to a technicality in the statute's application.

Just to add - Wyoming statute allows for reasonable collateral descriptions and 'all equipment' language has been consistently accepted there. Your continuation should go through fine as long as everything else matches up properly.

0 coins

That's consistent with what I've seen. Wyoming doesn't overcomplicate the UCC requirements.

0 coins

Right, they stick pretty close to the model UCC statute without adding weird state-specific twists.

0 coins

File early and double-check everything. Wyoming processes continuations quickly when they're done right, but rejections can eat up valuable time in that 6-month window. The statute gives you flexibility but the execution has to be precise.

0 coins

Smart approach. Better to file early and relax than wait and stress about potential problems.

0 coins

Yep, equipment deals are too important to risk timing issues. Get it done early and move on to the next deal.

0 coins

GalaxyGuardian

Need help understanding what exactly a security agreement is regarding security interests - UCC newbie here

Hey everyone, I'm working on my first commercial loan deal and keep seeing references to 'security agreements' in relation to security interests but I'm honestly confused about what this document actually IS. My loan officer mentioned we need one for the equipment financing but didn't really explain it clearly. I know it's related to UCC filings somehow but can someone break this down for me? Is this the same thing as the UCC-1 form or something separate? I don't want to mess this up since it's a pretty significant loan amount ($180k for manufacturing equipment). Any guidance would be super appreciated!

Just want to add that the security agreement also typically includes your promises as the debtor - things like maintaining insurance, not moving the collateral without permission, keeping it in good condition, etc. These are just as important as the lien rights themselves.

0 coins

Oh wow I hadn't thought about those kinds of ongoing obligations. Definitely need to read through all of that carefully.

0 coins

Exactly! Most people focus on the lien aspect but ignore the covenants. Violating those can trigger default even if you're current on payments.

0 coins

Anyone know if there are standard forms for security agreements or does every lender create their own? Seems like there should be some consistency in the industry.

0 coins

Most banks have their own standard forms but they're all based on similar legal principles. The key provisions are pretty consistent across lenders.

0 coins

My lawyer had template language for the security agreement that worked with multiple lenders. Might be worth having your attorney review it regardless.

0 coins

Diego Fernández

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.

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

Which document checking tool did you end up using? We have a similar filing coming up.

0 coins

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

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

Agreed - Wyoming keeps it straightforward compared to states that have added their own complications to Article 9.

0 coins

The straightforward approach is refreshing. Some states make UCC filing way more complicated than it needs to be.

0 coins

Malik Robinson

Mortgage UCC Filing Mix-Up - Lender Wants Both but SOS Rejected One

Getting myself twisted up here and hoping someone can untangle this mess. Working on a commercial real estate deal where we've got both a mortgage AND personal property that needs secured. The lender is demanding we file a UCC-1 for the equipment/fixtures plus record the mortgage for the real estate portion. Problem is, the Secretary of State portal rejected our UCC-1 because they're saying there's overlap with the mortgage filing we already recorded at the county level. The debtor name on both documents is identical (checked three times), but the SOS system is flagging some kind of conflict. Has anyone dealt with this mortgage UCC overlap situation before? The loan is supposed to close next week and I'm starting to panic that we've got some fundamental filing error that's going to blow up the whole transaction. The collateral description clearly separates real property (covered by mortgage) from personal property/equipment (covered by UCC-1), so I don't understand why the system is rejecting it. Any insights on how to handle dual filings like this?

I actually just used that Certana tool someone mentioned earlier for a similar document consistency check. It's pretty slick - you upload your mortgage and UCC-1 and it immediately flags any potential conflicts or inconsistencies. Found several issues we would have missed manually, including subtle formatting differences in debtor names and overlapping collateral descriptions. Definitely worth trying before you refile and risk another rejection.

0 coins

Pretty much instant. Upload the PDFs and it shows you any issues right away. Much faster than trying to manually compare documents.

0 coins

Might give this a shot. Better than playing guessing games with the SOS system.

0 coins

UPDATE: Called the SOS office this morning and spoke with a supervisor. Turns out the issue was exactly what several of you suspected - our collateral description included 'fixtures' which their system flagged as overlapping with the mortgage. They're processing it manually now with an amended collateral description that excludes fixtures. Should be cleared by end of week. Thanks everyone for the guidance!

0 coins

Great outcome. Always satisfying when the community troubleshooting works out.

0 coins

Perfect example of why it's worth calling and talking to a human instead of just trusting the automated system.

0 coins

StarStrider

UCC-9-105(h) definition causing filing confusion - need help

I'm dealing with a secured transaction where we need to determine if certain machinery qualifies as fixtures under UCC-9-105(h). The equipment was installed in our manufacturing facility last year but can be removed without structural damage to the building. Our lender's attorney is saying this affects whether we file a standard UCC-1 or need a fixture filing with real estate records. The definition in UCC-9-105(h) seems pretty specific about goods becoming fixtures, but I'm getting conflicting advice on how courts actually interpret this. Has anyone dealt with similar fixture determinations? The loan closing is next week and we need to get the filing strategy right.

Had a fixture filing rejected once because we misunderstood 9-105(h) - the equipment we thought was permanently attached actually wasn't under state law. Cost us three weeks to refile correctly. Definitely worth getting this determination right the first time, especially with your closing deadline.

0 coins

We got a written opinion from local counsel on the fixture determination and filed a regular UCC-1 instead of trying to do a fixture filing. Much cleaner process.

0 coins

Getting that written opinion is smart for the file too - shows you did proper due diligence on the 9-105(h) analysis.

0 coins

Based on what you've described, this sounds like textbook personal property under UCC-9-105(h). Removable equipment on concrete pads that doesn't require structural modification to remove is almost always going to be personal property, not fixtures. File your UCC-1 and don't overthink it.

0 coins

Thanks, that's reassuring. I think we were getting spooked by the attorney's fixture comments when the facts clearly point toward personal property.

0 coins

Attorneys tend to be overly cautious on fixture determinations because getting it wrong can be expensive. But your fact pattern is pretty clear cut.

0 coins

Prev1...382383384385386...684Next