How a UCC 3 Can Perfect a Security Interest by Amending the UCC 1

How a UCC-3 Can Perfect a Security Interest by Amending the UCC-1

  1. Existing UCC-1 Filing:
    • There must already be a valid UCC-1 Financing Statement on file. This UCC-1 serves as the initial public notice of the secured transaction and establishes the secured party’s interest in the collateral listed in the filing.
  2. Amending the Collateral Description:
    • A UCC-3 Amendment can be used to update the collateral description in the existing UCC-1. By adding new instruments, property, or assets as collateral, the amendment effectively perfects the secured party’s interest in those newly added items.
  3. Relation Back to the Original Filing Date:
    • The amendment typically relates back to the filing date of the original UCC-1, but only for the originally described collateral. For the newly added collateral, the perfection is effective as of the date the UCC-3 is filed.
  4. Perfection of the New Collateral:
    • Once the UCC-3 is filed and accepted by the appropriate Secretary of State (or relevant filing office), the security interest in the added collateral is perfected. This means the secured party now has an enforceable claim against the added collateral as it pertains to the debtor.

Key Points to Ensure Perfection

  • Proper Description of the New Collateral:
    • The new collateral must be described with sufficient detail in the UCC-3 Amendment. If the collateral is a negotiable instrument, you might include its type, value, maturity date, or any other identifiers.
  • Timely Filing:
    • The UCC-3 must be filed promptly to ensure that the new collateral is perfected before other creditors claim an interest.
  • No Need for a New UCC-1:
    • As long as the existing UCC-1 is valid and active, there is no need to file a new UCC-1. The amendment will update and expand the original filing.

Practical Example

Suppose a secured party initially filed a UCC-1 to perfect an interest in “all investment, commodity and trust deposit accounts contract with attached collateral and proceeds to secure collateral, along with claim of TRADENAME/TRADEMARK, COPYRIGHT/PATENT of the Name KEVIN L WALKER, my mind, body, soul of infants, spirit, and Live Borne Record…”  etc etc… Later, the debtor issues a negotiable instrument (e.g., a promissory note, bill of exchange, letter of credit, etc.) or acquires other assets that the secured party wants to secure. The secured party can:

  • File a UCC-3 Amendment to add the new negotiable instrument or assets as collateral.
  • Once filed and accepted, the security interest in the added collateral is perfected from the date of the UCC-3 filing.

Why a UCC-3 Works in This Case

The UCC-3 functions as an extension or modification of the UCC-1. It allows the secured party to continue using the same financing statement while expanding the scope of the security interest. By adding new collateral via the UCC-3, the secured party maintains the legal framework of the original UCC-1 while updating the agreement to cover additional assets.

Conclusion

A UCC-3 can be a powerful tool for perfecting a security interest in newly added collateral, provided there is an existing UCC-1 Financing Statement to amend. By properly describing the new instrument or property and filing the UCC-3, the secured party ensures that their interest in the new collateral is valid, enforceable, and perfected under the UCC.

Leave your vote

838393 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

PHH Mortgage Corporation's Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

KEVIN WALKER ESTATE’S Conditional Acceptance Exposes PHH Mortgage’s Motion as Procedurally Defective, Deceitful and Dishonest, Unconstitutional, and Legally Void

PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing, prepared by Neil J. Cooper of HOUSER LLP, violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

Further exacerbating this obstruction, critical documents remain missing from the court docket and record, preventing a full and fair adjudication of the Plaintiffs’ claims. This deliberate suppression of filings by the court and Defendants undermines due process, conceals key evidence, and constitutes judicial misconduct. The failure to properly record and acknowledge Plaintiffs’ filings further demonstrates systematic efforts to manipulate the proceedings in PHH Mortgage’s favor, reinforcing the need for immediate judicial correction, sanctions, and enforcement of Plaintiffs’ default judgment demands.

DOJ Dismantles Unconstitutional Barriers Protecting Corrupt Administrative Judges

DOJ Dismantles Unconstitutional Barriers Protecting Corrupt Administrative “Judges”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has concluded that restrictions on the removal of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris notified Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley that the DOJ will no longer defend these protections in court. DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle emphasized that unelected ALJs have wielded excessive authority without accountability for too long and must be answerable to the President and the American people.

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage's ("loan servicer") Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage’s (“loan servicer”) Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. exemplifies judicial overreach, procedural abuse, and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights. The motion falsely asserts that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact, denying individuals their right to self-representation and claiming that only "attorneys at law" can act in court. This contradicts established legal principles, including the American Bar Association’s recognition of power of attorney as a legitimate instrument granting broad authority. Additionally, the court has obstructed the record by refusing to file Plaintiffs’ documents, prompting a writ of mandamus to expose the Riverside Federal Court’s misconduct. This case underscores a broader pattern of legal corruption, defamation, and deprivation of rights under the color of law.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!