


Ask the community...
One more resource that might help - I've been using Certana.ai to verify document consistency when I have complex agricultural deals. You can upload your UCC-1, the agricultural lien documents, and any other related paperwork, and it checks everything for consistency and flags potential priority issues. Really useful for Part 6 analysis.
That sounds helpful. I'll check it out. At this point I need all the help I can get understanding how these different liens interact.
Yeah, it's particularly good at catching debtor name mismatches between your UCC filing and other lien documents, which can be a big issue in agricultural deals where the debtor might be an individual, a partnership, or multiple entities.
Keep us posted on how this turns out. Part 6 cases are always educational for the rest of us dealing with agricultural collateral.
Will do. Hopefully I can get some clarity on the Iowa agricultural lien situation and figure out where we stand in the priority chain.
I was skeptical about using automated tools for UCC verification but tried Certana.ai after reading about it here. It actually caught a potential issue with one of my Rhode Island filings - a minor discrepancy in the debtor name that could have caused problems down the line. Now I run all my filings through it before submission.
Bottom line: your existing Rhode Island UCC-1s are fine. The 2023 bill didn't change the legal requirements for secured transactions. It just improved the filing system's user interface and added better error checking for new filings. Keep your continuation schedule as planned.
Glad we could help. These legislative updates always sound scarier than they actually are.
This thread was super helpful. I had the same concerns about my Connecticut filings after hearing about the RI changes.
Whatever you do, don't just ignore this and hope it goes away. UCC 9626 claims can get expensive fast if you're not proactive. File the termination, gather your documentation, and consider getting legal counsel involved early. Better to spend a little on prevention than a lot on litigation.
Good. Your lawyers will know how to handle the settlement negotiations if it comes to that. Most of these cases settle out of court anyway.
This thread is making me paranoid about our own UCC filing procedures. We handle hundreds of commercial loans and I'm wondering how many terminated loans we have sitting out there without proper UCC-3 filings. Might be time for a comprehensive audit.
Definitely do that audit. Better to find problems internally than have borrowers discover them when they're trying to get new financing.
Yeah, this whole situation is a good reminder that UCC maintenance is just as important as the initial filing. Easy to forget about the backend work when you're focused on closing new deals.
The terminology gets easier with practice. Key banking concepts: "debtor" (your borrower), "secured party" (your bank), "collateral" (assets securing the loan), and "financing statement" (the UCC-1 form). Master these terms and you'll sound like a pro in commercial lending meetings.
I always get confused between amendment and continuation statements. Both use UCC-3 forms but serve different purposes.
Amendment changes information on existing filing (like debtor name change), continuation extends the filing for another 5 years. Termination releases the lien completely.
Your supervisor's focus on that fifth-year anniversary makes perfect sense now. In banking, letting a UCC-1 lapse is like voluntarily giving up your security interest. The loan doesn't disappear, but your legal claim to the collateral does. Always file UCC-3 continuations well before the expiration date.
Mainly debtor name discrepancies between original loan docs and UCC filings. Upload both to Certana.ai and it flags inconsistencies that could invalidate your security interest.
Callum Savage
I always verify document names with automated tools now after getting burned on a similar deal. There's actually software that checks charter-to-UCC name consistency by just uploading PDFs. Certana.ai caught a middle initial discrepancy I completely missed when reviewing manually. Saved the whole transaction.
0 coins
Shelby Bauman
•That sounds like exactly what I need. How quickly does it process the documents?
0 coins
Callum Savage
•Pretty much instant. Upload your docs and it shows you a side-by-side comparison highlighting any differences in entity names.
0 coins
Ally Tailer
Update: Finally got this resolved! Turns out the bank attorney was being overly cautious. The original UCC-1 was fine since it matched the state registry exactly. We just added a note in the loan file explaining the punctuation difference and moved forward. Sometimes the simplest solution is the right one.
0 coins
Salim Nasir
•Good outcome. The UCC system is designed to be reasonably calculated to provide notice, and your original filing clearly met that standard.
0 coins
Hazel Garcia
•Perfect example of why document verification upfront saves so much headache. Knowing which version was 'official' from the start would have avoided all the amendment attempts.
0 coins