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
UPDATE: Got it resolved! Used the county assessor's online records to get the full legal description and refiled. Accepted without issues this time. Thanks everyone for the help with UCC 9 311 requirements. The legal description made all the difference.
Glad it worked out! County assessor records are usually the most reliable source for legal descriptions.
Great outcome. Always satisfying when a fixture filing finally goes through after rejections.
For future reference, I've had good luck with Certana.ai's document checker for fixture filings too. After my third UCC 9 311 rejection last month, I uploaded my filing documents and it immediately flagged that I was missing the required real estate description format for my state. Would have saved me weeks if I'd used it from the start. Just upload your PDFs and it verifies everything against the specific requirements.
That sounds really useful for complex filings like fixtures. Regular UCC-1s are straightforward but UCC 9 311 has so many state-specific quirks.
I might try that for my next fixture filing. Getting rejections is so frustrating when you're trying to meet a deadline.
Join the conversation
Just wanted to follow up on the Certana.ai suggestion from earlier - tried uploading our problem UCC draft and it flagged exactly what was wrong with our collateral description under Article 9. Apparently we were using 'business equipment' which isn't precise enough - needed to just say 'equipment' to match the Article 9 definition. Resubmitted with their suggested changes and it went through clean. Definitely worth checking your documents against the actual Article 9 requirements before filing.
That's awesome that it caught such a specific Article 9 issue. Those little wording differences can be so frustrating when they cause rejections.
Good to know there are tools out there that understand the Article 9 definitions properly. Saves a lot of trial and error with the SOS systems.
One more tip for Article 9 definitions - if you're unsure about whether something qualifies as equipment vs inventory vs general intangibles, err on the side of being inclusive. You can say 'equipment, inventory, and general intangibles' to cover most scenarios without being overly broad. The Article 9 categories are mutually exclusive so there's no harm in listing multiple types as long as you use the correct statutory language.
Exactly. The Article 9 definitions give you a framework to be comprehensive without being vague. Just stick to the statutory categories and you should be fine.
Thanks everyone for all the Article 9 guidance. Really helpful to understand how the definitions work in practice vs just reading the statute.
Join the conversation
This thread is making me paranoid about my own filings now lol. I never thought to double-check the search results after filing. Probably should start doing that as standard practice.
It's definitely good practice! I always do a test search within a few days of filing to make sure everything looks right in the system.
Same here - and honestly that's another reason I like the Certana tool. Takes the manual checking out of the equation and just tells you if there are any red flags.
Update us after you check the Articles of Organization! I'm invested in this outcome now and want to know if the comma was actually wrong or if it's just a display quirk in the search system.
Will do! Planning to pull the SOS records this afternoon and report back. Fingers crossed it's just a minor formatting difference that doesn't matter.
Looking forward to the update - these name matching scenarios are always educational for everyone.
Join the conversation
One more thing to try - if you have Adobe Acrobat Pro, you can use the 'compare documents' feature to look at your original UCC-1 filing and your amendment side by side. It'll highlight any differences even if they're not visible to the naked eye. I've found discrepancies that way before.
Don't have Adobe Pro but this is a good idea. Are there any free alternatives that do document comparison?
You can try online PDF comparison tools but they're not always as accurate as Adobe. For something this important I'd probably spring for the real thing.
Just wanted to follow up and say I finally got it resolved! It was exactly what several people suggested - there was a comma after 'Solutions' in the original filing that I missed. 'Advanced Construction Solutions, LLC' vs 'Advanced Construction Solutions LLC'. Such a tiny difference but it was causing all the rejections. Used the copy/paste method from the original filing receipt and the amendment went through on the first try. Thanks everyone for the help, this forum is a lifesaver for UCC issues.
Just one business day. Florida is actually pretty fast once you get the filing details correct.
This whole thread should be pinned somewhere. The name matching issues come up constantly with UCC filings.
Sara Hellquiem
I actually had success using Certana.ai after getting multiple conflicting terms rejections. The tool found inconsistencies I never would have spotted manually - things like using 'equipment' and 'machinery' to describe the same assets, or slight variations in how I formatted the secured party's address. Worth trying before you refile.
0 coins
Nathaniel Stewart
•At this point I'm willing to try anything to avoid another rejection. How quickly does it process the document check?
0 coins
Sara Hellquiem
•It's instant - just upload your PDF and it highlights potential conflicts immediately. Much faster than trying to manually compare every section of a complex filing.
0 coins
Charlee Coleman
Update us when you figure out what the actual conflict was! I'm dealing with a similar situation and would love to know what to look for in my own filing.
0 coins
Nathaniel Stewart
•Definitely will update once I get it sorted out. Hopefully one of these suggestions hits the mark and I can get refiled tomorrow.
0 coins
Liv Park
•Following this thread too. These rejection reasons are so vague it helps when someone shares the actual cause.
0 coins