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

Judicial Integrity in Action: Judge Wesley Hsu and Magistrate Maria Audero Honorably Uphold Due Process in Kevin: Walker vs Chad Bianco RICO and 42 U.S.C. 1983 Case

Judicial Integrity in Action: Judge Wesley Hsu and Magistrate Maria Audero Honorably Uphold Due Process in Kevin: Walker vs Chad Bianco RICO and 42 U.S.C. 1983 Case

Judge Wesley Hsu’s and/or Magistrate Maria Audero’s Court took a significant step toward restoring judicial integrity by docketing and honorably backdating Kevin: Realworldfare’s VERIFIED Affidavit asserting State Citizenship and constitutional standing in case 5:25-cv-00646-WLH-MAA. This filing directly rebuts prior false presumptions labeling him a U.S. citizen or ward of the State. In contrast to prior judicial misconduct by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, who obstructed identical filings, Hsu and Audero’s actions demonstrate procedural fidelity and impartiality. Their conduct marks a hopeful departure from the systemic corruption plaguing courts in Riverside County. The case highlights growing public scrutiny and demand for lawful adjudication based on record, not presumption.

Affidavit Delivered to Judge Wesley Hsu's Court in Kevin Walker vs Chad Bianco Remains Undocketed — Delay or Concealment? Benefit of the Doubt Extended, For Now

Affidavit Delivered to Judge Wesley Hsu’s Court in Kevin Walker vs Chad Bianco Remains Undocketed — Delay or Concealment? Benefit of the Doubt Extended, For Now

This article exposes a troubling pattern of judicial misconduct in California’s federal courts, where verified affidavits asserting State Citizenship and national status have been received but concealed from the official record. Specifically, it highlights the nondocketing of a key affidavit in Kevin: Walker v. Bianco et al. before Judge Wesley Hsu, while extending temporary benefit of the doubt due to possible administrative backlog. The article also touches on and reconfirms how Judge Jesus G. Bernal falsely claimed non-response in a related case to justify an unlawful dismissal, now under appeal. These actions collectively suggest systemic obstruction, due process violations, and potential criminal liability under multiple federal statutes.

Jurisdiction Citizenship and Federal Zones The Truth Behind Wong Kim Ark and the Buck Act of 1940

Jurisdiction, Citizenship, and Federal Zones: The Truth Behind Wong Kim Ark and the Buck Act of 1940

This article explores the crucial legal distinctions between a State Citizen and a U.S. citizen (14th Amendment subject) by analyzing the Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark v. United States and the jurisdictional implications of the Buck Act of 1940. It reveals how federal jurisdiction is not based on geography, but on consent and contractual participation in federal benefit programs. Through detailed legal reasoning, it explains how one can owe allegiance to the United States as a constitutional Republic without being subject to its corporate statutory codes. The piece provides actionable remedies for rebutting federal presumptions and restoring lawful State Citizenship.

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 !!