Related Posts
And go to sleep it’s Monday tomorrow 🥹
Just sayin’ 💁♂️
Additional Posts in Real Estate - Law
Anyone feel they’re slow?
Anyone working in Spain here?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Because it’s a different loan. The first UCC-1 was likely with respect to that loan, which has been presumably paid off. Now you’re starting with a new loan and the lender needs a new UCC-1 with respect to your new loan.
PGC1, that’s not always true. Often, loans are technically amended and restated when you have the same lender, borrower and collateral. This is don’t often in Florida to avoid doc stamps on the “new” mortgage ($0.35/$100).
Under those circumstances, in theory the same financing statements would suffice. Still, lenders may functionally consider this a new loan, but with simply the names of the loan documents modified to read “amended and restated” and, as a result, prefer to keep their usual UCC practices in place.
When we refinanced a commercial building in Florida I believed the lender filed a new/amended UCC-1. Like anything, it likely depends on the lender’s own internal practices. But agreed that a new UCC might not be technically necessary. Perhaps in the OP’s case, a construction loan and a standard mortgage loan are usually, at least in my experience, two very different animals.
I’d agree that it would be atypical to amend and restated a construction loan as a permanent loan. Mostly exploring the theory of it more than the actual process.
As we all know from the golden rule, those with the gold rule . . .