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
Hannah White
For your specific situation with three laser cutters, I'd go with: 'Three industrial laser cutting machines: [Brand Model X, Serial #123], [Brand Model Y, Serial #456], [Brand Model Z, Serial #789], together with all attachments, accessories, and related equipment.' This gives you the specificity for the main items plus coverage for related components.
Mia Green
•That's a good template. I like how it covers the specific machines but also includes related equipment. Thanks for the practical example!
Perfect approach. Specific enough to avoid ambiguity but broad enough to cover accessories and related items.
Mateo Silva
Just to add another perspective - I've handled several equipment financing deals and usually see a mix of approaches. Some lenders want everything super detailed, others prefer broader descriptions. It often depends on their internal policies and risk tolerance. But for $280K in identified goods, detailed descriptions are definitely the safer route.
True, though from a legal standpoint, more detail is usually better for enforcement purposes, regardless of lender preference.
I always try to balance lender preferences with legal protection. Usually works out to something in the middle - specific but not overly complex.
Join the conversation
Sofia Perez
Look, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if you're 3 months behind and they've started the UCC sale process, your negotiation window is probably closed. Focus on making sure they follow proper procedures and maximize the sale price so you don't end up with a huge deficiency judgment.
Sofia Perez
•Ok if their UCC-1 is actually defective that changes everything. Worth checking for sure. But if it's valid, then yes, focus on the sale procedures.
That's why the Certana document verification is so valuable - it quickly tells you if you have any grounds to challenge their security interest. Upload your docs and their UCC-1, get an instant answer.
Update us on what happens! These sale of collateral under ucc situations are always educational for the rest of us. Hope you find some procedural errors that give you more time to work things out.
Andre Dubois
•Smart plan. Tackle the foundational issues first - if their filing is defective nothing else matters.
Good luck. Remember you still have rights even in default situations. Don't let them railroad you.
Join the conversation
Ethan Wilson
Timeline is important here. UCC searches are only as good as the date you run them. With your few-week deadline, you'll want to run updated searches right before closing to make sure no new filings have appeared.
Most title companies will run updated searches as part of the closing process, but it's good to stay on top of it yourself.
Andre Dubois
•With manufacturing equipment, there's also the possibility of new purchase money security interests being filed by parts suppliers or service companies.
CyberSamurai
Update: Thanks for all the advice. Ended up doing a comprehensive search that found two UCC-1 filings I initially missed - one under a slightly different corporate name and another that was a continuation of an older filing. Working with the secured parties now to get releases for the specific equipment we want. The Certana tool mentioned earlier was really helpful for organizing all the documents and making sure everything matched up properly.
Jamal Carter
•Smart move getting the releases in advance. Some lenders can be slow to respond to release requests.
Mei Liu
•Good outcome. This is exactly why thorough searches are worth the extra time and cost upfront.
Join the conversation
The key with Florida is making sure you're using the EXACT name format from the Articles of Incorporation, not the abbreviated version that sometimes shows in search results. Even something like 'Corp' vs 'Corporation' will trigger rejection. Pull the actual filed Articles and match character for character.
Exactly. The search database often has truncated or simplified versions of the legal names. Always go back to the original filing.
Learned this the hard way after 3 rejections on a time-sensitive filing. Now I always pull the actual Articles first.
Just went through this exact scenario with a client filing. Turned out there was a non-breaking space character in the company name that wasn't visible but was causing the rejection. Used a document verification tool to catch it - would never have found it otherwise.
Dylan Evans
•Hidden characters like that are the worst. Really need automated tools to catch them reliably.
Okay, I'm convinced. Going to try the document checker before my next submission attempt. Thanks everyone for the help!
NeonNebula
Update for anyone following - I checked the Colorado SOS database and the official name is 'Mountain View Equipment LLC' (matches the promissory note). Filed the UCC-1 this morning using that exact name and it was accepted. Thanks everyone for the advice about checking state records first!
0 coins
Ravi Malhotra
•Good reminder that the promissory note version happened to be correct this time, but you never know without checking.
0 coins
Freya Christensen
•Glad it worked out. This thread will be helpful for others dealing with promissory note and security agreement name discrepancies.
0 coins
Omar Farouk
This whole discussion makes me realize I should probably double-check some of our older filings. We've had a few deals where document names weren't perfectly consistent and I just went with what seemed most official at the time.
0 coins
AstroAlpha
•I did that last year with Certana.ai's bulk document checker and found several filings that needed corrections. Worth the peace of mind.
0 coins
Omar Farouk
•I'll look into that. Can't hurt to verify our security interests are properly perfected.
0 coins