In re Cilek
115 B.R. 974 (Bkcy W.D. Wis. 1990)
The court had this to say:
While both parties complied with [existing section 9-203], Honda Finance failed to comply with [existing section 9-402]. In the present case, the financing statement filed by Honda Finance on August 11, 1980, does not indicate the types of collateral because none of the terms which [existing section 9-105 -- 9-109?] uses to subdivide collateral appear in the financing statement of August 11, 1980. The financing statement of August 11, 1980 does not describe items of collateral because both "all Honda motorcycles" and "any other property" summarize collateral instead of itemizing collateral as required. Furthermore, "all Honda motorcycles for which American Honda Finance Corporation gives purchase money financing" does not reasonably identify the actual collateral because a reasonable man could not tell the difference between a Honda motorcycle financed by Honda Finance, a Honda motorcycle financed by Dairyland Insurance, or a Honda motorcycle owned by the Debtor.