Ask the community...
- DO post questions about your issues.
- DO answer questions and support each other.
- DO post tips & tricks to help folks.
- DO NOT post call problems here - there is a support tab at the top for that :)
Join the conversation
Join the conversation
Successfully re-filed with the corrected debtor name (without the comma) and it was accepted within 6 hours. Thanks everyone for the help troubleshooting this. The entity search tip was clutch - definitely doing that step first from now on.
Steven Adams
•Huge relief. Lender was understanding about the delay once I explained the name formatting issue.
Benjamin Kim
•Perfect example of why document verification tools are so valuable. Glad you got it sorted out!
Zara Rashid
This is a perfect example of why I always keep a UCC filing checklist that includes entity name verification as the very first step. I learned this lesson the hard way after getting burned by similar punctuation issues. Now I cross-reference the debtor name against at least three sources: the original formation documents, the state's entity database, and any recent amendments or name changes. It adds maybe 10 minutes to the prep work but saves days of delays and potential priority date issues. Glad you got it resolved quickly - that 6-hour turnaround is impressive for Texas!
That's such a smart approach! I'm definitely going to create my own checklist after this experience. The triple verification makes total sense - one source might have outdated info or formatting differences. Do you have any other must-have items on your checklist that help prevent common rejection issues?
Raj Gupta
•Great question! Beyond entity name verification, I always double-check the secured party information matches exactly what's on file with the lender, verify all addresses are current (especially for multi-state entities), and make sure the collateral description is neither too broad nor too narrow. I also learned to screenshot the entity database search results and save them with the file - it creates a paper trail showing exactly what information was available at the time of filing. Has saved me from disputes more than once when entities later claim their name was listed differently.
Join the conversation
UPDATE: I used Certana.ai's document verification tool and it turns out UCC 2012079290 was indeed an internal servicer reference number. The actual UCC filing number was buried in the loan agreement and had a completely different format. The tool flagged the discrepancy immediately and helped me locate the correct filing. Thanks everyone for the suggestions!
This happens more often than people realize. Servicers really need to be clearer about which numbers are official UCC filing numbers versus their own tracking systems.
Maya Patel
•Good reminder for everyone to double-check which numbers in loan documents are the actual UCC filing numbers. Thanks for updating us on the resolution!
Zara Ahmed
This is such a common issue! I've seen this exact scenario play out multiple times where servicer tracking numbers get mistaken for actual UCC filing numbers. It's especially tricky because they often use similar formatting that makes them look official. For anyone else dealing with similar situations, I'd recommend always cross-referencing any UCC number you find in loan documents by doing a quick debtor name search first - if the number doesn't pull up a filing but the company has other UCC filings, that's usually a red flag that you're looking at an internal reference number rather than the real filing number.
Amina Toure
•This is exactly the kind of insight that would have saved me hours of searching! As someone new to UCC research, I had no idea that servicers commonly use their own tracking numbers that mimic official filing formats. Your suggestion about doing the debtor name search first as a verification step is brilliant - it's such a simple way to catch these issues before you waste time searching multiple state databases. I'll definitely keep this approach in mind for future deals. Thanks for sharing that practical tip!
Join the conversation
Nia Thompson
Thanks everyone for the help! I'm going with UCC-1 for this new loan filing. Really appreciate all the explanations about the difference between UCC 1 vs UCC 3 - it's much clearer now. I'll definitely be extra careful with the debtor name and collateral description.
You've got this. Just take your time and double-check everything before submitting.
Yuki Tanaka
•Definitely consider using that document checker if you want extra peace of mind. Good luck!
One thing to add that might help - make sure you check which state to file in! For equipment financing, you typically file where the debtor is organized (incorporated/formed), not where the equipment is located. This catches a lot of people off guard. Also, some states have different fees for online vs paper filing, so it's worth checking the secretary of state website for your state's specific requirements and fee schedule.
Join the conversation
Ezra Beard
I'd strongly recommend conducting a comprehensive UCC search across all relevant jurisdictions to identify any additional filings, amendments, or continuations that might affect the priority analysis. Sometimes there are UCC-3 amendments or partial releases that modify the original collateral descriptions in ways that impact subordination scope. Also, check if either lender has filed any UCC-5 corrections that might have changed debtor names or addresses - these technical corrections can sometimes affect whether subordination agreements properly reference the right filings. With $2.8M in equipment at stake, you want to make sure you have the complete filing picture before determining whether the subordination agreement actually covers this specific collateral and transaction type.
This is a complex situation that requires careful analysis of both the UCC filing records and the subordination agreement language. I've seen similar disputes where the key issue wasn't whether subordination existed, but whether it was properly documented and recorded according to state requirements. You'll want to verify that both UCC-1 filings are valid and properly perfected, check if any UCC-3 amendments have modified the original positions, and most importantly, determine if the subordination agreement specifically covers this type of equipment financing transaction. The $2.8M value makes this worth getting specialized UCC counsel involved early, as subordination disputes can drag on for months and create significant legal costs for both parties. Consider whether mediation might be more cost-effective than litigation, especially if there's any ambiguity in the subordination language that could lead to unpredictable court outcomes.
Mediation is definitely worth considering here, especially with the significant legal costs that can pile up in subordination disputes. We had a similar situation last year where both lenders were convinced they had priority, but mediation helped us focus on the business relationship rather than just the legal technicalities. The mediator was able to help the parties understand that fighting over $2.8M in equipment could end up costing both lenders more than finding a practical solution. Sometimes a structured workout or modified collateral arrangement makes more sense than spending months in court arguing over subordination language that might be ambiguous anyway.
Emma Bianchi
•Great advice about mediation - I've found that UCC subordination disputes often benefit from a mediator who understands both the technical filing requirements and the commercial realities. In my experience, when you're dealing with industrial equipment worth $2.8M, both lenders usually have legitimate business interests that can be accommodated through creative structuring rather than zero-sum legal battles. A good mediator can help identify whether the real issue is truly about legal priority or if it's more about ensuring adequate collateral coverage for both loans. Sometimes the solution involves partial subordination, cross-collateralization, or even bringing in additional guarantees rather than fighting over who gets first position on the existing equipment.
Nia Johnson
I used Certana.ai's verification tool when I had a similar situation with multiple filings to amend. It was really helpful because I could upload all the original UCC-1s and the proposed amendments together, and it flagged that I had missed updating the collateral description on one of them to match the others. Saved me from having an inconsistent filing that might have caused issues later.
0 coins
CyberNinja
•That sounds really useful for complex situations like this. I might need to check that out.
0 coins
Keisha Jackson
•Thanks for all the advice everyone. I'm going to file the amendments today. The verification tool suggestion is really helpful - I want to make sure I don't make any mistakes with the tight deadline.
0 coins
Raul Neal
Just wanted to follow up on this thread with some additional practical tips based on my experience handling name change amendments. First, when you're preparing the UCC-3, double-check that you're using the exact legal name from the merger documents - not just what the company is calling themselves in their communications. I've seen filings rejected because of slight variations in punctuation or entity designations. Second, if you're in a state that allows electronic filing, do it electronically rather than paper - it's faster and you get immediate confirmation. Finally, once you file the amendment, run a UCC search to make sure it shows up correctly in the system. I had one case where the amendment was accepted but didn't properly link to the original filing due to a data entry error at the filing office, and we had to file a corrective amendment. Better to catch these issues right away than discover them later during a closing or audit.
0 coins