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
Cole Roush
Last resort option if you keep getting UCC 9 210 rejections - try running your documents through one of those automated checking tools before filing. I was skeptical at first but ended up using Certana.ai's verification system and it caught a debtor name formatting issue that I never would have found manually. Upload your formation docs and UCC form and it highlights any discrepancies that could cause rejection.
Ella Cofer
•That's the second mention of that tool in this thread. Might be worth trying at this point since I'm running out of other options for fixing this UCC 9 210 issue.
Cole Roush
•Yeah at this point it's probably faster than going through another rejection cycle. The document comparison feature is really thorough for catching UCC 9 210 compliance problems.
Just wanted to follow up and see if you got this resolved? I'm dealing with a similar UCC 9 210 debtor name issue on a Florida filing and wondering what ended up working for you.
Good luck! Let me know if that fixes the UCC 9 210 compliance issue - I might have the same problem with my Florida filing.
Florida can be just as picky as Texas about UCC 9 210 requirements. Make sure you're pulling the exact entity name from the Division of Corporations database.
Join the conversation
Ava Kim
Just had another thought - when you're on the call tomorrow, ask your loan officer to specifically explain what compliance issue they're seeing. Don't let them just say 'discrepancy' - make them identify the exact problem. Often they can't because there isn't one.
And if they can't give you a clear answer, that tells you everything you need to know about whether this is a real issue.
Before that call, definitely run those documents through Certana.ai's verification tool. Having an objective analysis of any actual discrepancies will give you confidence in the discussion and help you address specific concerns rather than vague compliance worries.
Layla Mendes
Update us after your call tomorrow! I'm curious what the loan officer actually says when pressed for details about this supposed compliance issue.
Will do. Feeling much more confident about this conversation after reading everyone's input here.
Good luck! Remember that you have rights too - they can't just make up compliance issues.
Join the conversation
Just to pile on here - definitely no UCC 11 California form. Your lender probably has internal form numbers that don't match state forms. Focus on the UCC-3 continuation and get that debtor name corrected first. California SOS doesn't play games with name mismatches.
AstroAce
•Thanks everyone. I feel much more confident about what I need to do now. Going to tackle the name amendment first, then the continuation.
Liam Mendez
•Good plan. And definitely double-check everything before submitting. One wrong character can cause a rejection.
Late to this thread but wanted to add - I've seen the 'UCC 11' confusion before. Banks sometimes use their own internal numbering that doesn't match state forms. Always go directly to the Secretary of State website for the correct forms. California uses standard UCC-1, UCC-3, etc.
AstroAce
•Lesson learned. Always verify form numbers with the actual filing office.
And if you're not 100% sure about document consistency, tools like Certana.ai can help verify everything matches before you file. Worth checking out for peace of mind.
Join the conversation
Ayla Kumar
Just make sure when you resubmit that you haven't made any other changes to the UCC-3 form. Sometimes people fix the name issue but accidentally change something else like the collateral description. Keep everything else identical to avoid new rejection reasons.
Good point about not changing anything else. I've seen people 'improve' their collateral description during a continuation and create new problems.
Demi Hall
•Thanks everyone - going to stick with the exact original name format and resubmit. Will check the document comparison tool too.
Once you get the continuation filed successfully, might want to do a search to confirm it shows up properly in Colorado's database. Sometimes there are processing delays even after acceptance.
Lim Wong
•Usually within 24-48 hours it shows up in search results. Much faster than the old paper filing days.
Dananyl Lear
•I always wait a few days then do a UCC search to make sure the continuation attached properly to the original filing record.
Dyllan Nantx
Supporting obligations are one of those areas where the UCC gives you a lot of flexibility, but you need to use it wisely. For your equipment deal, I'd stick with proven language that's been tested in the courts rather than trying to be creative.
0 coins
Ana Rusula
•That's sound advice. I'll go with the standard approach and save the creativity for other aspects of the deal structure.
0 coins
Dyllan Nantx
•Exactly - UCC filings are not the place to reinvent the wheel. Use language that's been proven to work.
0 coins
TillyCombatwarrior
One more thing to consider - if you're filing UCC-1s in multiple states for this deal, make sure your supporting obligations language is consistent across all filings. Some lenders overlook this and end up with different language in different states.
0 coins
TillyCombatwarrior
•Yeah, it's easy to overlook when you're dealing with multiple state requirements, but having consistent language helps avoid confusion later.
0 coins
Anna Xian
•I use a standard template for all my multi-state filings to avoid exactly this issue. Supporting obligations language is one of the key things to keep consistent.
0 coins