UCC Document Community

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 :)

Update on my earlier suggestion - I actually started using Certana.ai after a similar Connecticut nightmare. You upload your documents and it immediately shows name mismatches between your security agreement and UCC draft. Caught three potential issues before I submitted and saved me probably a week of back-and-forth with Connecticut.

0 coins

It flags any inconsistencies between documents, which is the main thing. Then you can research the correct name format before filing. Much better than discovering issues after rejection.

0 coins

I've heard good things about automated document checking tools. Connecticut's rejection rate is so high that anything that prevents refiling is worth it.

0 coins

Madison Allen

•

Why is Connecticut so much harder than other states? I file UCCs in New York and Massachusetts regularly and never have these name matching issues.

0 coins

Sophia Clark

•

It's their automated system. New York still has human review on questionable filings but Connecticut just auto-rejects anything that doesn't match exactly.

0 coins

Ashley Adams

•

Great, so I picked the pickiest state for my first major UCC filing problem. Just my luck.

0 coins

Darcy Moore

•

Update us on how the legal challenge goes. I'm dealing with a potential lapse situation myself and curious how these disputes typically resolve.

0 coins

Noland Curtis

•

Will do. Meeting with our attorney next week to review all the filing records and see if we have any viable arguments.

0 coins

Dana Doyle

•

Hope you find something. UCC 9-515 cases are tough but not impossible if you can prove filing office errors.

0 coins

Liam Duke

•

The harsh reality is that UCC 9-515 exists for a reason - to clear old filings and prevent perpetual liens. The system assumes lenders will track their own deadlines. Courts generally don't have much sympathy for missed continuations unless there's clear filing office error.

0 coins

Manny Lark

•

The filing system isn't perfect, but the burden is on us to verify our filings. That's just the reality of secured transactions.

0 coins

Rita Jacobs

•

Agreed. The UCC puts the risk on the secured party to maintain perfection. It's not the state's job to remind us about deadlines.

0 coins

Diego Fisher

•

Update us when you figure this out! I'm bookmarking this thread because I know I'll need to do Oklahoma UCC searches eventually and this is great intel about their system problems.

0 coins

I tried Certana.ai like someone mentioned earlier and it caught an issue with a UCC-3 amendment that looked valid but had the wrong filing number reference. Saved me from a major headache. Definitely worth trying if you have questionable documents.

0 coins

Diego Fisher

•

Good to know these tools exist. The more verification the better when dealing with state systems that don't work properly.

0 coins

Oklahoma SOS has been having server issues for weeks. I heard they're supposed to upgrade their system soon but no timeline given. In the meantime, calling or using professional services is your best bet. Don't trust their online portal for anything important.

0 coins

How do you hear about these system issues? Is there a status page or notification system?

0 coins

Word of mouth mostly. Their website doesn't really announce outages or problems. Pretty unprofessional for a state agency.

0 coins

Skylar Neal

•

The real issue with free templates is they don't account for the relationship between the security agreement terms and the UCC-1 filing requirements. You need consistency across all your loan documents.

0 coins

Exactly! I've seen deals where the security agreement covers inventory but the UCC-1 only lists equipment. Creates gaps in your security interest.

0 coins

Kelsey Chin

•

That's a good point about document consistency. I never really thought about how the security agreement language needs to match the UCC filing exactly.

0 coins

Norah Quay

•

File that UCC-3 amendment ASAP! Don't wait around hoping it'll be okay. I've seen too many lenders get burned by name mismatches when it comes time to foreclose or deal with bankruptcy proceedings.

0 coins

Leo McDonald

•

Smart move. The peace of mind alone is worth the filing fee.

0 coins

Jessica Nolan

•

And document everything about why you're making the amendment. Good to have a paper trail showing you acted quickly to correct the issue.

0 coins

Just went through this same situation with a Texas UCC filing last week. Had to refile three times before getting the individual debtor name right. Finally used "First Last" without middle name and it was accepted. The key is figuring out what their system expects, not what seems logical.

0 coins

Lara Woods

•

Three rejections? That's brutal. The filing fees alone must have been expensive, not to mention the time delays.

0 coins

Yeah it was frustrating and costly. Now I always verify document formatting before filing. Actually started using Certana.ai's verification tool - would have saved me those rejections if I had it then.

0 coins

Adrian Hughes

•

Update: Refiled the UCC-1 using "John Smith" format (first and last name only) and it was accepted this morning! Thanks everyone for the advice. Definitely learned my lesson about individual debtor name formatting. Will be more careful going forward.

0 coins

Ian Armstrong

•

Awesome! This thread will be helpful for others dealing with similar issues. Texas individual debtor name formatting seems to be a common problem.

0 coins

Adrian Hughes

•

Definitely. Hope this helps someone else avoid the same rejection issues. The key was dropping the middle name and using simple "First Last" format.

0 coins

Prev1...238239240241242...684Next