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
Jayden Hill
This thread is making me feel better about our UCC implementation struggles. We had about a 25% rejection rate initially but got it down to around 8% after implementing better procedures. The Certana.ai tool mentioned earlier sounds interesting. We're always looking for ways to reduce manual review time while maintaining accuracy.
Lucas Bey
•8% is still pretty high isn't it? What's considered an acceptable rejection rate for UCC filings?
Jayden Hill
•Industry standard seems to be 3-5% for well-run operations. 8% isn't great but it's manageable. Still working on getting it lower.
Quick question - when you're doing UCC continuations, do you run into name matching issues between the original UCC-1 and the UCC-3 continuation statement? We've had a few cases where the continuation got rejected because of minor name differences.
That's frustrating but at least it's catching the problems. Better late than never I guess.
Continuation rejections are actually a good quality control check for your original filings. Pain in the short term but helps identify systemic name issues.
Join the conversation
For what it's worth, I've found that including both the common name and legal name in the debtor field sometimes works. Like 'Robert J. Martinez Jr. aka Roberto Jose Martinez Junior' or whatever the legal name actually is.
Hit or miss depending on the state, but it's worked for me a few times when I couldn't figure out the exact legal name format they wanted.
I tried this once and got rejected for 'improper debtor name format.' Might depend on which state you're in.
Ev Luca
Update us when you figure out what went wrong with the Martinez filing. I'm curious if it was a suffix issue or something more complicated. Always helpful to learn from other people's UCC rejection experiences.
Will do. Going to try the document verification approach someone mentioned and see what that turns up first.
Avery Davis
•Yeah, keep us posted. These auto loan UCC issues seem to be getting more common lately.
Join the conversation
Owen Devar
For what it's worth, I've started including unconscionability disclaimers in my UCC filings - something like 'this security interest excludes household goods, exempt property, and other assets protected by law.' Hasn't been rejected since I started doing that.
I've seen similar language work well. Certana.ai actually suggests disclaimer language based on your state's specific unconscionability interpretations.
Might steal that approach for our standard forms. Seems like cheap insurance against rejection.
UPDATE: Refiled with narrowed collateral description excluding household goods and exempt assets. Added unconscionability compliance language. Filing was accepted within 24 hours. Thanks everyone for the guidance - this forum saved my deal!
Molly Hansen
•Glad it worked out! This thread will be helpful for others dealing with the same issue.
Brady Clean
•Great outcome. The unconscionability definition is still evolving, so these discussions are really valuable for staying current.
Join the conversation
Aria Park
Just had to deal with a similar 9-511 issue last week. The key is remembering that amendments reference the original filing, so all identifying information needs to match exactly. Delaware's particularly strict about this, but once you get the format right, future amendments are much easier.
Good to know Delaware's consistent about their requirements, even if they're strict.
Aria Park
•Yeah, strict but predictable. Once you know their preferences, it's actually easier than states that are inconsistent.
Noah Ali
Thanks everyone - this thread has been super helpful. Going to file the UCC-3 with the original corp name to stay 9-511 compliant and note the entity conversion in additional info. Will definitely check out that document verification tool too since I'm clearly missing things in my manual reviews.
Smart approach. The verification tool will catch stuff like this automatically so you don't have to worry about 9-511 compliance issues in the future.
Liam Mendez
•Sounds like a solid plan. Good luck with the filing!
Diego Flores
The name matching issue is why I always recommend getting title insurance or UCC insurance for larger deals. Even with careful searching, there's always a risk of missing something due to name variations or filing errors. Insurance gives you that extra protection.
0 coins
Yara Khoury
•I hadn't considered UCC insurance for this. Is that common for equipment financing deals?
0 coins
Diego Flores
•More common on larger deals or when there are complex name issues like you're dealing with. Worth discussing with your underwriting team at least.
0 coins
Anastasia Kozlov
Just went through something similar with a borrower whose name had changed twice since formation. Ended up using Certana.ai to verify all the document names matched before filing our UCC-1. Found three different name variations across their corporate docs that I would have missed doing manual review. Tool paid for itself just on that one deal.
0 coins
Yara Khoury
•That's exactly the kind of situation I'm worried about. Multiple name changes make the search so much more complicated.
0 coins
Anastasia Kozlov
•Yeah, it was a mess. The automated document checking caught discrepancies I never would have spotted manually. Definitely worth trying for complex entity names.
0 coins