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
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.
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.
Diego Fisher
•Good to know these tools exist. The more verification the better when dealing with state systems that don't work properly.
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.
How do you hear about these system issues? Is there a status page or notification system?
Word of mouth mostly. Their website doesn't really announce outages or problems. Pretty unprofessional for a state agency.
Join the conversation
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.
Will do. Meeting with our attorney next week to review all the filing records and see if we have any viable arguments.
Dana Doyle
•Hope you find something. UCC 9-515 cases are tough but not impossible if you can prove filing office errors.
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.
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.
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.
Join the conversation
This whole thread is why I always include a UCC name verification step in my loan closing checklist. Too many ways for this to go wrong if you're not systematic about it.
Zainab Omar
•Smart approach. Do you have a standard form or process you use for that verification?
Nothing fancy - just a checklist that includes pulling current corporate standing, comparing to loan docs, and doing a preliminary UCC search. Catches most issues before filing.
One more thing to consider - make sure your collateral description is solid too while you're refiling. I've seen people fix the name issue only to get rejected again for vague collateral language.
Usually being too generic. Like just saying 'equipment' when they should specify 'manufacturing equipment' or 'office equipment' or whatever. The more specific the better.
Also seen people mess up the 'all assets' filings by not being clear about what categories they mean. Specificity is key.
Join the conversation
For what it's worth, I just tried the Colorado portal and it seems to be working fine now. Might have been a temporary server issue. Try again and see if it's resolved.
Just tried again and you're right - it's working now! Finally got my search results. Thanks everyone for the suggestions, definitely saving some of these backup methods for next time.
QuantumQuest
•Glad it worked out! These portal issues always seem to resolve themselves right after you find a workaround.
This thread is a perfect example of why we need better infrastructure for UCC searches. The fact that we're all sharing workarounds for a basic government service is ridiculous. At least we help each other out though.
Liam McGuire
•The private sector solutions like Certana exist exactly because the government portals are so unreliable. Market demand creates alternatives.
Amara Eze
•True but we shouldn't have to pay extra for basic public records access that works properly.
Leeann Blackstein
For what it's worth, I think you're probably fine on the perfection issue given that it's just a missing 's', but I'd still clean it up with amendments before the bank exam. The examiner will appreciate seeing that you identified and corrected the discrepancy proactively rather than them having to point it out.
0 coins
Ryder Greene
•Exactly - showing proactive compliance management always looks good during examinations.
0 coins
Carmella Fromis
•Plus if there are any other minor issues they might be more lenient if they see you're being thorough about corrections.
0 coins
Theodore Nelson
UPDATE: Thanks everyone for the advice. We ended up using one of the document verification tools mentioned here (Certana.ai) to check all our filings against the Articles of Incorporation. Turns out we had name inconsistencies on 3 different borrowers, not just the one we noticed. We're filing UCC-3 amendments for all of them this week and feel much better going into the bank exam knowing everything matches up perfectly.
0 coins
Ellie Simpson
•Smart move checking all your filings - bet you're not the only lender who would find multiple name issues if they did a comprehensive review.
0 coins
Arjun Kurti
•Thanks for the update and glad the verification tool worked out. Might have to look into that for our portfolio review next quarter.
0 coins