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
Kai Rivera
One thing to double-check - make sure the strict foreclosure actually covered all the collateral described in the original UCC-1. If there were multiple assets and the foreclosure only covered some of them, you might need a partial termination instead of a full termination. This could complicate the name matching issue even further.
How do you handle partial terminations when the debtor name has changed? Same amendment process first?
Yes, you'd still need to address the name discrepancy before filing any type of termination, partial or full.
Kaylee Cook
Based on everyone's advice here, sounds like your best bet is: 1) File UCC-3 amendment to update the debtor name using your bankruptcy documentation, 2) Wait for amendment to be accepted and indexed, 3) File your UCC-3 termination referencing the amended filing. It's an extra step but probably the most reliable way to avoid further rejections.
Lara Woods
•Agreed. Better to take the extra time upfront than deal with multiple rejections and delays.
Thanks everyone - this gives me a clear path forward. Will try the amendment approach first.
Join the conversation
For what it's worth, I've never seen a UCC challenged successfully based on address discrepancies in Kansas. The courts understand that the Secretary of State's system has these display issues. Your security interest is almost certainly fine.
That's exactly what I needed to hear. Thanks for the real-world perspective on how courts actually handle these situations.
Agreed. The case law is pretty clear that minor address variations don't invalidate filings when the debtor name is sufficient for identification purposes.
Update on this - just got off the phone with Kansas SOS and they confirmed this is a known display issue. They said the actual filed documents have the correct information and the search results sometimes pull addresses from different database fields. They're supposedly working on a fix but no timeline. At least I can stop worrying about it now!
Lol 'working on a fix with no timeline' - government speak for 'maybe we'll get to it in 2030
Thanks for making that call and reporting back. Really appreciate everyone's help on this thread - saved me a lot of stress and probably an unnecessary amendment filing!
Join the conversation
Yuki Sato
Don't forget to consider filing a termination for the old lapsed UCC-1 once your new filing is accepted. Having both on record can cause confusion for future searches and potential buyers of the collateral.
Wait, if the old filing lapsed, do you still need to terminate it? I thought lapsed filings just disappear from effective searches.
Andre Dubois
•They don't disappear from the record, they just lose their perfection effect. Terminating keeps the record clean and avoids confusion.
CyberSamurai
UPDATE: Thanks everyone for the advice. I filed a new UCC-1 this morning with the exact same debtor name and collateral description as the original. Used one of those document verification tools someone mentioned to double-check everything first. The filing was accepted within 2 hours. Now I need to have a difficult conversation with our lender about the gap period, but at least we're perfected again. Setting up multiple calendar reminders for the next continuation in 2030!
Jamal Carter
•Smart move using the verification tool. Those little details can make or break a filing, especially when you're under pressure.
Mei Liu
•Glad it worked out. The 2030 reminder is smart - I'd also set one for 2029 just to be extra safe!
Join the conversation
Ana Rusula
Is this for a new loan or are you checking existing collateral? The search strategy is different depending on what you're trying to accomplish.
New loan, so I'm doing full due diligence to make sure there are no prior liens I need to worry about.
Ana Rusula
•Then you definitely want to be thorough. I'd recommend searching multiple name variations and checking back 7-10 days to make sure you didn't miss anything due to indexing delays.
Fidel Carson
One more thing - if you're seeing different results between name and filing number searches, there might be amendments or continuations that aren't properly linked in the system. I'd focus on the filing number searches since those are usually more reliable.
Fidel Carson
•Good plan. And document everything you find with screenshots and timestamps for your loan file.
Also consider using a service like Certana.ai that can verify all your UCC documents match up properly - really helpful for catching issues before they become problems at closing.
Zainab Ismail
Just remembered - try CT Corporation or CSC. They do a lot of corporate filing services and might have UCC forms available. They definitely understand the multi-state compliance issues you're dealing with.
0 coins
Ethan Taylor
•Great suggestion! I forgot about the big corporate service companies. They would definitely understand the need for proper forms across multiple jurisdictions.
0 coins
Zainab Ismail
•They might even be able to set you up with state-specific form packages so you don't have to worry about format variations.
0 coins
Connor O'Neill
I tried Certana.ai after seeing it mentioned here and it's actually pretty helpful for multi-state filings. You can upload your completed forms and it verifies everything matches up correctly before you submit. Saves time on corrections and refilings when there are inconsistencies.
0 coins
Ethan Taylor
•That verification feature sounds useful. Do you still use physical forms or has the tool changed your process?
0 coins
Connor O'Neill
•We still use some physical forms for our files but now we scan everything and run it through the verification tool first. Catches issues we used to miss.
0 coins