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

A UCC-3 Amendment allows secured parties to update an existing UCC-1 Financing Statement to include additional collateral. This process ensures that the newly added assets are perfected and legally protected under the original filing. By amending rather than filing a new UCC-1, the secured party maintains the continuity of the original filing while expanding its scope. The amendment must clearly describe the new collateral and be filed in the appropriate jurisdiction to ensure the perfection of the security interest. This approach streamlines the process while securing the updated assets.
  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

SDCCU, Sheppard Mullin, Michael D Starks, and Blake Partridge are actively Waging War Against the Constitution and the American People

SDCCU, Sheppard Mullin, Michael D Starks, and Blake Partridge are actively Waging War Against the Constitution and the American People

The Constitution of the United States serves as the bedrock of our nation, guaranteeing unalienable rights, due process, and the supremacy of the people over the government. Yet, Sheppard Mullin, Shannon Peterson, and Blake Partridge, Junior Partner at Sastre, Saavedra & Epstein, PLLC, have demonstrated through their actions that they stand in direct opposition to these foundational principles. Their conduct represents a calculated assault on constitutional protections and the sovereignty of the American people, effectively waging war against the Constitution and its intended purpose.

Judge Roy K Altman’s Blatant Bias and Undermining of the the U.S. Constitution, the UCC, and HJR 192

Judge Roy K Altman’s Blatant Bias and Undermining of the the U.S. Constitution, the UCC, and HJR 192

In recent legal proceedings, Judge Altman’s handling of critical commercial and financial laws has raised serious concerns. His dismissal of key sections of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and essential federal statutes, such as House Joint Resolution 192 and 18 U.S.C. § 8, undermines the integrity of the U.S. legal system. These laws are foundational to understanding the complex interplay of U.S. monetary policy, debt discharge, and commercial transactions. In this article, we will dissect the significant legal missteps in Judge Altman’s ruling, exploring the implications for commercial law, government debt obligations, and the broader judicial system.

Title 18 Crimes and Civil Remedies Avoiding Common Pitfalls That Cause Dismissals

Title 18 Crimes and Civil Remedies: Avoiding Common Pitfalls That Cause Dismissals

Bare criminal statutes define unlawful behaviors and prescribe penalties such as fines or imprisonment but do not grant individuals the right to file lawsuits. These statutes are enforced exclusively by government authorities. In contrast, a private right of action allows individuals to file lawsuits for civil remedies, either explicitly or implied by courts. While criminal statutes like mail fraud or conspiracy against rights may not provide private remedies, other laws such as RICO or § 1983 may allow victims to seek civil redress. The distinction between criminal enforcement and civil remedies underscores the importance of understanding statutory rights for successful legal claims.

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 !!

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 !!