The Unrebutted Affidavit:Judgement:Lien  UCC 1 Financing Statements must be Authorized to be effective

The Unrebutted Affidavit/Judgement/Lien: UCC-1 Financing Statements must be Authorized to be effective

Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code governs secured transactions. It provides a mechanism whereby a secured creditor can perfect its security interest in the debtor’s assets by filing a UCC-1 financing statement

In theory, anyone can file a UCC-1 against anyone else. To protect both secured creditors and debtors, Article 9 has strict requirements that must be met for a filed UCC-1 to be effective. One of those requirements is that the financing statement must be authorized by the debtor. Even if that authorization is way of a non-response to an affidavit and/or notice, silent acquiescence, tacit agreement, and/or tacit procuration.

Two cases that show how easy it is for unauthorized UCC-1s to be filed and highlight the importance for potential lenders to make sure the financing statements that are discovered in their UCC search are authorized.

They also show how important it is for companies to be vigilant in keeping track of any UCC-1s that may be filed against them without their knowledge.

 

Case 1: Unauthorized UCC-1s of titanic proportions

In Lightstorm Entertainment, Inc. v. Cummings, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80720, decided April 27, 2021, Cummings brought a copyright action against, among others, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, and James Cameron (the studio parties) seeking $400 million because they allegedly based the film Titanic on his life story. That action was dismissed.

Nevertheless, Cummings filed two UCC-1s against the studio parties with the California Secretary of State purporting to establish a security interest in their assets based on a $400 million debt they owed him. Upon discovering the filings, the studios filed an action seeking a declaration that the UCC-1s were false and void, an order instructing Cummings to withdraw them, and an order instructing the Secretary of State to remove and expunge the documents from their official records.

The U.S. District Court, Central District of California, granted the studio parties’ motion for summary judgment. The court noted that the California Commercial Code provides that a person may file a UCC-1 only if the debtor authorizes the filing by (1) authenticating a security agreement; (2) becoming bound as debtor by a security agreement; or (3) acquiring collateral in which a security interest is attached.

Here, it was undisputed that the studio parties never authorized the UCC-1s. Accordingly, the studio parties were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, and injunctive and declaratory relief as provided pursuant to Commercial Code Sec. 9625(a) and 28 USC Sec. 2201(a) (the Declaratory Judgment Act).

 

Case 2: What $100,000,000 debt?

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Fegely, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63079, decided March 30, 2021, involved a dispute over a piece of property located in Virginia. Fegely borrowed money to buy the property, defaulted on the loan, and Deutsche Bank purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. Fegely then filed a UCC-1 financing statement with the Virginia State Corporation Commission and recorded it in the county clerk’s office.

On the financing statement, she identified herself as both the “filer” and the “secured party” to a “superior security interest” in the property based on an alleged $100,000,000 debt owed to her by “Indy Mac”. Deutsche Bank, as trustee for Indy Mac, then filed suit seeking, among the things, a declaration that the UCC-1 financing statement was invalid, null, and unenforceable as a matter of law.

The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, noted that under Virginia’s UCC law, Secs. 8.9A-509 and 510 of the Virginia Code, a filed record is effective only to the extent that it was filed by a person that may file it and that a person may file an initial financing statement only if the debtor authorizes the filing.

Virginia law further provides that “to authorize such filing, the debtor must do so: (1) in an authenticated record; (2) by authenticating or becoming bound as a debtor by a security agreement; or, (3) by acquiring collateral.

Here, Fegely submitted no documentation or other evidence of Indy Mac’s alleged indebtedness to her and presented no evidence that Indy Mac authorized the filing statement. Therefore, the court declared the financing statement null, void, and unenforceable.

 

Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Did you invoice and/or notice your DEBTOR?… Did you send them an affidavit which remains unrebutted? Did you send a Default and Opportunity to Cure? Did you send an Affidavit CERTIFICATE of Non-Response? You have evidence of dishonor as stipulated by U.C.C. § 3-505: EVIDENCE OF DISHONOR?

 

What are the key takeaways?

The key takeaways from these cases include the following:

  1. a UCC-1 can be filed without the “debtor’s” knowledge or authorization, although it will not perfect the “secured party’s” interest,
  2. lenders’ due diligence may include further investigation of the liens their UCC search uncovers to make sure they were authorized, and
  3. businesses may need to be vigilant in making sure no unauthorized financing statements have been filed against them.
  4. Unrebutted notarized Affidavits (thus authenticated) and/or Invoices and/or  Notices, which appropriately structure the “offer” being presented to include express “Authorization” from the respondent, would appear to satisfy the requirements to allow the filing of the lien.

Leave your vote

3661 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish "the People"

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish “the People”

A federal RICO action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California unveils a calculated scheme orchestrated by attorneys Barry Lee O’Connor and John Bailey, in concert with MARINAJ PROPERTIES and the Doumit family. The Verified Complaint lays out a detailed pattern of racketeering involving simulated legal proceedings, fraudulent conveyance, and theft of trust assets through a void and defective Trustee’s Deed. Despite perfected title claims and unrebutted affidavits establishing lawful ownership, Judge Rachel A. Marquez has enabled the misconduct by shielding culpable parties and targeting the rightful beneficiaries asserting their rights. The suit cites violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (RICO), 241 (conspiracy against rights), and 1341 (mail fraud), along with California Civil Code §§ 1709 (fraud) and 3346 (treble damages for wrongful injury to property). This case exemplifies judicial corruption—where bar-protected insiders act with impunity while private Americans are silenced. The court’s response will reveal whether justice, equity, and due process remain alive in California.

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

UCC §§ 1-103, 3-104, 3-601, and 3-603 operate as the foundation of lawful commercial remedy across all 50 states. Section 1-103 ensures equity, common law, and the Law Merchant remain enforceable alongside UCC processes. Section 3-104 defines what qualifies as a negotiable instrument—an essential element in debt discharge. Section 3-601 codifies the principle that all obligations can be discharged by contract, agreement, or valid performance. Section 3-603 delivers the lethal commercial strike: once lawful tender is made—even if refused—the obligation is discharged as a matter of law. These statutes, codified in every U.S. jurisdiction, are the legal artillery that allow secured parties and private trusts to assert control, tender discharge, and permanently terminate fraudulent or unperfected claims. Use them with precision—or be used by those who will.

20410479 329d 40a2 8d4d 492022986bb5

Void Means Void: When Judges Act Without Jurisdiction, Their Orders Are Legal Nullities

When a court acts without lawful jurisdiction—whether through improper removal, lack of subject matter or personal authority, or constitutional violations—its orders are void ab initio and carry no legal force. This article explains how judges who continue to issue rulings after losing jurisdiction are not merely mistaken—they are acting under color of law and are subject to direct civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Backed by black-letter case law and statutory authority, this piece dismantles the myth of absolute judicial immunity and affirms a fundamental truth in law: jurisdiction is everything. When it’s gone, so is the court’s power to act.

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 !!