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
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
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.
Yara Khoury
•I hadn't considered UCC insurance for this. Is that common for equipment financing deals?
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.
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.
Yara Khoury
•That's exactly the kind of situation I'm worried about. Multiple name changes make the search so much more complicated.
Yeah, it was a mess. The automated document checking caught discrepancies I never would have spotted manually. Definitely worth trying for complex entity names.
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
Olivia Clark
Try pulling the original UCC-1 from the NY UCC database and copying the debtor name field directly from there instead of from your own records. Sometimes there are discrepancies between what you filed and what actually got recorded.
Aisha Patel
•That's actually really smart. I was using our internal file copy of the UCC-1. Let me check what's actually on record with the state.
This is the right answer. The official record is what matters, not what you think you filed.
UPDATE: Just wanted to thank everyone for the help. Turned out there was indeed an extra character in the original filing that I couldn't see. Used the Certana document checker that a couple people mentioned and it flagged the issue immediately. Refiled the UCC-3 with the corrected name and it went through on the first try. Definitely going to use that tool for all my future filings.
Amina Diallo
•Thanks for the update. Good to know the document verification approach actually works.
Awesome! Yeah once you start using automated verification you'll never go back to manual comparison. Too many little things to miss otherwise.
Paolo Esposito
Whatever you do, don't rely on just one sample form. Get samples from multiple sources and compare them. I've seen sample forms with outdated information or wrong field requirements.
0 coins
Giovanni Rossi
•That's a really good point. I'll check several sources before finalizing.
0 coins
Paolo Esposito
•Smart approach. And definitely verify the debtor information against official records. Can't stress that enough.
0 coins
Amina Toure
For what it's worth, I always keep copies of successful UCC-1 forms from previous deals as templates. Obviously you change all the specific information, but it helps ensure you don't miss any standard clauses or formatting.
0 coins
Miguel Castro
•Just make sure your templates stay current with any rule changes. UCC requirements do evolve over time.
0 coins
Amina Toure
•Absolutely. I review and update my templates annually or whenever I hear about rule changes.
0 coins