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

Screen Shot 2025 07 12 at 1.03.15 PM

How to Recuse a Federal Judge — And Why It’s Mandatory and They Must Step Down Immediately Under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and § 455

Learn how to lawfully recuse a biased federal judge using 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Once a verified motion and affidavit are filed, disqualification is immediate, mandatory, and strips the judge of all jurisdiction. Any continued action by that judge is ultra vires and void ab initio. This article exposes the legal authority behind automatic recusal and outlines your remedies if the judge refuses to step down.Ask ChatGPT

Screen Shot 2025 07 09 at 1.55.31 PM

EXPOSING JUDICIAL FRAUD: How a Federal Judge Otis D. Wright, II Ignored Civil Rights Law, Violated Due Process, and Tried to Bury a Federal Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)

A federal judge’s July 2025 order is now under fire for unlawfully striking a removal, misapplying criminal statutes, ignoring unrebutted affidavits, and participating in a fraudulent party substitution. The case, originally removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), involves severe allegations of constitutional violations, jurisdictional fraud, and due process abuse. Despite clear legal precedent barring time limits on § 1443 removals, the court falsely claimed the removal was untimely and smeared the petitioner with defamatory labels. This article exposes the judicial misconduct, factual distortions, and illegality underlying the void order now being challenged.

Screen Shot 2025 07 08 at 9.35.01 PM

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT MANDAMUS VANISHES: Ninth Circuit Fraud, Tampering, Judicial Collusion, and a Federal Cover-Up Seems Unequivocal

Federal courts are now under scrutiny after a verified Writ of Mandamus vanished from the Ninth Circuit docket without explanation—raising grave concerns of judicial tampering, fraud, and systemic misconduct. Judge Sunshine Sykes defied clear jurisdictional divestiture by issuing rulings on a matter under appellate review, violating 28 U.S.C. § 144 and § 1651. This article exposes a disturbing pattern of ultra vires acts, denial of due process, and potential RICO violations implicating both district and appellate judges.Ask ChatGPT

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 !!