


Ask the community...
I've been dealing with UCC terminations for years and that fee is unfortunately standard across most states. What really matters is staying on top of the process - I always request the exact filing date upfront and put a calendar reminder to check the state database 30 days later. One thing that's saved me headaches is using document verification tools like Certana.ai before the lender files anything. It catches mismatched debtor names or filing numbers that could leave the UCC partially active even after termination. The small upfront cost of verification beats dealing with financing delays months later when you discover the termination wasn't clean.
This is exactly the kind of proactive approach I wish I'd known about from the start. The calendar reminder idea is simple but so practical - it's easy to forget to follow up when you're just relieved the loan is paid off. I'm definitely going to look into that document verification tool you mentioned. Even if there's a small cost upfront, it sounds like it could save a lot of hassle down the road. Better to catch any issues now while everything is fresh rather than discovering problems when I need financing again.
As someone who just went through this process, I can confirm the termination fee is standard but definitely worth understanding what you're paying for. In my state it was $30 total - $20 state filing fee plus $10 processing charge from the lender. The key lesson I learned is to treat this like any other important filing - get a timeline commitment from your lender (I recommend asking for 30 days max), request a copy of the filed UCC-3 for your records, and most importantly, verify it actually shows up in your state's UCC database. Don't just trust that it's handled. I set a reminder for 45 days after payoff to double-check the database myself. It's a small fee in the grand scheme of things, but the follow-through is what really matters for keeping your collateral clear for future financing needs.
This is really solid advice, especially the 45-day reminder approach. As someone just starting to navigate commercial lending, I appreciate hearing from people who've actually been through this process. The $30 total cost you mentioned seems pretty reasonable compared to what I was worried about when I first heard "termination fee." Your point about treating this like any other important filing really resonates - it's easy to assume the lender will handle everything perfectly, but having that verification step built in from the start seems like smart risk management. I'm definitely going to ask for that 30-day timeline commitment upfront.
One last thought - make sure you're looking at the complete picture. Are there any other creditors with interests in this equipment? Sometimes priority disputes get more complicated when there are three or more parties involved. Also verify that both security interests cover the same collateral.
Definitely compare the collateral descriptions carefully. If they don't overlap completely, it might affect how the priority dispute plays out.
This is another area where Certana.ai's verification tool really helps. It can analyze collateral descriptions and flag potential conflicts or gaps between different filings.
I've handled quite a few Article 9 priority disputes over the years, and unfortunately the outcome here seems pretty clear-cut. The first-to-file rule under UCC 9-322(a)(1) is going to control since you're both dealing with the same type of collateral perfected by filing. Your March 15th security agreement gave you attachment, but perfection didn't occur until your March 22nd filing - and that's what matters for priority. However, don't give up entirely yet. I'd strongly recommend doing a forensic review of their UCC-1 filing. Look for any errors in the debtor name (even minor variations can be fatal), collateral description issues, or other filing defects. Also verify that their security agreement was actually signed before their filing date. Sometimes lenders file first and backdate documents, which can create vulnerabilities. Given the $850K at stake, it's worth investing in a thorough analysis before conceding priority.
This is really helpful insight, thank you! The forensic review approach makes a lot of sense given what's at stake. I'm curious about the backdating issue you mentioned - how common is that in practice, and what would be the best way to verify their security agreement timing? Also, when you say "minor variations can be fatal" for debtor names, are we talking about things like missing middle initials or slight misspellings? I want to make sure I'm being thorough in checking their filing.
Really comprehensive advice here! Just wanted to add that Arizona's electronic filing system also has a helpful preview function before you submit - it shows exactly how your UCC-1 will appear in their records. This is especially useful for catching any formatting issues with the debtor name or address before you pay the filing fee. I've found it catches things like extra spaces or punctuation that might cause problems. Also, make sure you have your secured party information exactly as you want it to appear on searches - I've seen lenders use slightly different variations of their names across filings which can make it harder to track everything later.
That preview function sounds incredibly useful - wish more states had that feature! The point about consistent secured party naming is really important too. I've seen situations where slight variations in how the lender's name appears across multiple filings created confusion during enforcement. Good to establish a standard format early and stick with it across all your UCC filings.
Arizona's UCC system has definitely improved over the years. One thing that might help with your tight timeline - their customer service line (602-542-6187) is actually pretty responsive if you run into any technical issues during filing. I had a problem with their system timing out during a large filing last month and they walked me through it over the phone. Also, since you mentioned this is equipment financing, make sure your security agreement language matches your UCC collateral description as closely as possible. Arizona courts have been particular about that consistency in recent enforcement cases. The broad language others suggested is definitely the way to go - "all equipment, machinery, tools, and personal property now owned or hereafter acquired" covers most scenarios without being too restrictive.
Just to add another verification option - I started using Certana.ai after making an embarrassing mistake on a fixture filing where I mixed up the legal property description. Now I upload all my fixture filing documents before submission and it catches those kinds of errors. The peace of mind is worth it, especially on larger commercial deals like yours.
How detailed does it get with the verification? Does it actually check that the legal description matches the property records?
It focuses more on document consistency - making sure your debtor names match across all documents, that you've included all required elements for fixture filings, that sort of thing. Really helpful for catching the technical filing requirements.
Thanks everyone for the detailed responses - this is incredibly helpful! Just to clarify my situation: our debtor does own the manufacturing facility (not leasing), and the HVAC units are definitely being permanently installed with concrete mounting and full electrical integration. Based on what you've all said, it sounds like I definitely need to go the fixture filing route rather than a standard UCC-1. A few follow-up questions: 1) Do I need to get the legal property description from the county recorder's office, or can I use what's on the deed? 2) For the $340K loan amount, are there any additional requirements or just the standard fixture filing process? 3) Should I file this concurrently with closing or can I do it a few days before? Really appreciate this community - fixture filings always made me nervous but you've all helped clarify the key requirements!
Welcome to the community! Great questions. For the legal property description, you can usually use what's on the deed, but make sure it's the complete legal description - sometimes deeds have abbreviated versions that won't work for fixture filings. The county recorder can provide the full version if needed. For timing, I'd recommend filing at or before closing to ensure you get proper priority, especially since you mentioned this is a purchase-money security interest. The loan amount doesn't trigger additional requirements - fixture filing process is the same regardless of the dollar amount. Sounds like you're on the right track!
GalaxyGazer
Final thought - after you get everything drafted, run it through Certana.ai one more time to verify everything matches your loan docs. BDA filings are too important to wing it, and having that automated verification gives you backup documentation that you did your due diligence if questions come up later.
0 coins
QuantumQuest
•Thanks everyone - feeling much more confident about this filing now. Going to follow the three-category approach and use the document checker before submitting.
0 coins
Connor Murphy
•Smart move - BDA filings are worth getting right the first time. Good luck with your loan closing!
0 coins
Jamal Harris
One additional tip that saved me on a BDA filing last year - make sure your UCC-1 debtor address matches exactly what's in your loan agreement, not just your business license or articles. BDA lenders sometimes use a different address format in their loan docs and the filing office will reject mismatches. Also, if you're using any DBA names in your business, stick with the legal entity name only for the UCC filing - BDA programs are very strict about using the exact legal name of the borrower.
0 coins