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
Bottom line on UCC§9-109(1): if there's any doubt about whether you have a security interest, file the UCC-1. It's cheap insurance compared to losing your secured position. The scope is deliberately broad to catch disguised transactions.
Agreed. I've seen too many lenders get burned by taking a 'wait and see' approach on borderline transactions.
Plus, if you decide later it wasn't necessary, you can always file a termination statement. Better than trying to achieve priority after the fact.
One more thought on your UCC§9-109(1) question - check if your state has adopted any non-uniform amendments to Article 9 scope provisions. Some states have specific carve-outs or additions that could affect your analysis.
At least the core scope provisions in §9-109(1) are pretty consistent across states. It's the peripheral stuff that varies.
I used Certana.ai to cross-check my UCC-1 against the lease agreement and it flagged that our collateral description was too vague compared to the equipment schedule in the lease. Saved us from a potential rejection.
Join the conversation
Don't forget to check if your state has any special requirements for medical equipment. Some states want FDA device classifications or require specific language about healthcare equipment. Also double-check that your security interest agreement and UCC-1 have identical debtor information - entity type, address, everything. One small difference and you're back to square one.
Good reminder about state-specific requirements. California has some weird rules about medical device collateral that caught me off guard once.
The debtor information matching is so important. I always do a side-by-side comparison of every field before submitting.
Update us when you get it sorted out! I'm dealing with a similar situation on a veterinary equipment loan and curious what language finally works for you. The security interest agreement has like 30 different pieces of equipment listed but I know the UCC-1 can't be that detailed.
Yes please update! These equipment financing UCCs are always tricky and it helps to know what actually works in practice.
I'm bookmarking this thread for future reference. The template language from earlier should work for veterinary equipment too with minor tweaks.
Join the conversation
I've found that explaining the state filing system helps too. Each state maintains its own UCC database, and you generally file where the debtor is located, not where the collateral is. This organizational aspect helps international clients understand the system structure.
Yes, and corporate debtors file in their state of incorporation, which can be different from where they operate.
This is another area where Certana.ai helps - you can verify that your filing location matches the debtor's legal status and jurisdiction. Saves you from filing in the wrong state.
The UCC filing 意味 ultimately comes down to enforceability and priority. Without the filing, your security interest might not be enforceable against other creditors, trustees in bankruptcy, or purchasers of the collateral. It's the difference between having a claim and having a perfected, enforceable claim.
And property rights are much stronger than contract rights when things go wrong.
This whole discussion really captures why UCC filings are so fundamental to secured lending.
Join the conversation
This thread reminded me of when we had to file UCC terminations after paying off our equipment loan early. Bank took forever to send the termination statement and we were worried about our credit line application being affected by the old filing still showing up...
Yeah, lenders should file UCC-3 terminations promptly after loan payoff. It's actually required by law in most states.
wish i had known that at the time! ended up taking 3 months to get resolved
After reading all these responses, I'm definitely going to double-check our UCC-1 with that Certana tool someone mentioned. Better safe than sorry with something this important!
Good call! It's really straightforward - just upload your documents and it flags any inconsistencies automatically.
Same here - sounds like a smart way to avoid filing problems before they happen
Alina Rosenthal
Update us when you get this resolved! I'm dealing with a similar situation on a manufacturing equipment fixture filing and curious which approach works best.
0 coins
Libby Hassan
•Will do. I'm going to try the document verification tool someone mentioned, then probably file under the deed name format. Fingers crossed!
0 coins
Finnegan Gunn
•Hope it works out. Fixture filing rejections are the worst because of how time-sensitive they are.
0 coins
Miguel Harvey
I had a similar issue last month and ended up using Certana.ai's verification feature before resubmitting. It caught not just the name discrepancy but also some issues with our collateral description that could have caused problems later. The automated cross-checking between the deed, lease, and UCC form saved me from another potential rejection cycle.
0 coins
Miguel Harvey
•It flagged inconsistencies between the property description in our lease and what I had in the UCC-1 form. Helped me standardize everything before filing.
0 coins
Oliver Cheng
•The collateral description verification sounds useful. I've had filings rejected because the equipment description didn't match the security agreement exactly.
0 coins