AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 47, relative to Uniform Commercial Code financing statement filings.
Summary
HB1342 amends Tennessee’s Uniform Commercial Code provisions governing financing statement filings, specifically the process for reviewing and challenging filings that are alleged to be unauthorized or otherwise improper. The bill changes the timeline and routing for petitions for review by requiring the filing office to forward the petition, the disputed financing statement, and the public official’s notarized affidavit to the Secretary of State’s administrative procedures division within three business days, along with a request for hearing.
The bill also adds post-decision notice requirements. If an administrative law judge issues a determination under this process, the secured party must provide a copy of that determination to the filing office. Likewise, if the public official who filed the affidavit receives such a determination, that official must provide it to the filing office. If the secured party seeks judicial review under the state administrative procedures act, the secured party must notify the filing office by providing a copy of the petition for judicial review within seven days of filing.
Impact
The bill updates Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-9-513, affecting the UCC filing system used for secured transactions and lien-related financing statements. Its practical effect is to speed and clarify the administrative review process for disputed filings, improve communication between the filing office, secured parties, and public officials, and ensure the filing office has notice of administrative and judicial outcomes that may affect the status of a financing statement.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It moved through the House Banking and Consumer Affairs Subcommittee, Commerce Committee, Judiciary Committee, and then passed the House on the consent calendar with unanimous or near-unanimous votes at each stage, including a 93-0 floor vote. The lack of recorded opposition and the consent-calendar passage suggest general agreement that the measure is a technical or procedural update rather than a substantive policy dispute.
Contention
No major contention is evident in the available record. The bill’s changes are procedural, focusing on deadlines, notice, and recordkeeping in the financing-statement challenge process. Any potential concern would likely center on administrative burden or compliance timing for secured parties and public officials, but no such objections appear in the committee or floor vote history provided.