UCC Document Community

Update: I ended up using Certana.ai's document checker that someone mentioned earlier. Uploaded our debtor's articles of incorporation and it found two UCC filings under name variations I completely missed - one under 'ABC Construction Company LLC' and another under 'ABC Construction L.L.C.' Both would have been senior to our filing. The automated verification caught what hours of manual searching missed. Closing is back on track.

This thread highlights exactly why I always budget extra time for UCC searches, especially in Florida. The name variation issue is real and costly if you get it wrong. One tip I'd add - if your debtor has ever changed their legal name or merged with another entity, make sure to search under their previous names too. I've seen situations where old filings under a former name still create priority issues. The automated tools people are mentioning sound promising, but I'd still recommend doing at least a basic manual verification to make sure you understand what you're looking at. Nothing beats human judgment when interpreting search results.

UPDATE: Called my loan officer this morning and you were all right - they meant UCC-1 form, not UCC 1-308. Apparently their internal system numbers the forms differently and they just got confused. Thanks everyone for the help! Going to use that Certana tool too just to make sure everything's correct before filing.

This is such a helpful thread! I'm new to commercial lending and was about to run into the same issue with a client next week. It's really frustrating how different institutions use their own internal numbering systems - creates so much unnecessary confusion. Thanks for sharing the resolution, and I'm definitely going to bookmark that Certana tool for future reference. Sounds like it could save a lot of headaches down the road.

Update us when you get the termination filed! Always curious to hear how these LoanPal deals work out.

Just wanted to chime in as someone who's been through similar situations - the advice here is spot on. I've handled several early payoffs with solar lenders and the key is really just being methodical about matching the original filing details. The name variation you're worried about (Johnson, Michael R. vs Michael Robert Johnson) is actually pretty common and shouldn't cause issues as long as you use exactly what's on the UCC-1. California's system is pretty forgiving with these kinds of variations, but consistency is still the safest approach. Sounds like you've got all the pieces in place - the original UCC-1 from the SOS site, confirmation it's the only filing, and the payoff documentation. You're being appropriately cautious, which is good, but don't let the nerves paralyze you. File that UCC-3 termination and you'll be all set.

Update on our UCC 1 - 202 situation: I filed the UCC-3 amendment to correct the debtor name yesterday and it was accepted this morning. The key was getting the exact legal name from our current Articles of Organization. Also updated the collateral description to be more specific per the new lender's requirements. The whole process took less than 24 hours online. Thanks everyone for the advice - crisis averted!

As someone who's been through multiple UCC 1 - 202 amendments, I can't stress enough how important it is to get ahead of these issues. The name discrepancy problem you're facing is super common - we see it all the time when businesses change entity types or update their legal names. My advice would be to file the UCC-3 amendment for the debtor name correction immediately, don't wait. Ohio's online filing system is pretty efficient, so you should have confirmation within 24-48 hours. For the collateral description issue, you can either include that in the same amendment or file a separate one later if your new lender needs time to finalize their requirements. The most critical thing is maintaining continuous perfection - any gap in coverage could be disastrous. Also, make sure you have copies of all your current corporate documents before filing so the debtor name matches exactly. Good luck with your refinance!

Unfortunately, your client learned an expensive lesson about the importance of proper documentation. Article 9 is pretty unforgiving when it comes to the basic requirements. No written agreement + no possession = no security interest. It's that simple for equipment collateral.

I feel for your client, but everyone here is absolutely right - without a written security agreement, there's no enforceable security interest in equipment that can't be possessed. I've had to deliver this same bad news to clients before, and it's never easy. The UCC 9-203 requirements are ironclad: you need either possession/control OR a written agreement signed by the debtor. Since we're talking about manufacturing equipment the debtor obviously needs to keep using, possession isn't an option. My advice is to be direct with them about their position as an unsecured creditor, but also explore whether the debtor might be willing to enter into a proper security agreement now to secure the existing debt. At least then they'd have protection going forward, even if they can't fix the 2019 issue.