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
Just to add - make sure you're also checking for any recent name changes on the entity. If they filed an amendment to their Articles changing their name, you need the current name not the old one, even if your loan docs have the old name.
Good point. How do you check for name changes in Illinois?
The SOS business search will show you the filing history including any amendments. Look for 'Articles of Amendment' filings that might have changed the entity name.
Update: Successfully refiled with the exact name from the SOS database and it was accepted within 6 hours. Thanks everyone for the guidance. Definitely learned my lesson about verifying entity names before filing.
Great outcome. I'm bookmarking this thread for future reference when I'm doing Illinois filings.
Perfect example of why document verification is so important. One character difference can invalidate your entire security interest.
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
Another vote for Certana.ai here - I started using their UCC verification tool after a particularly embarrassing rejection that could have been caught easily. Now I upload all my documents before filing and it catches inconsistencies I would have missed. Takes like 30 seconds and has probably saved me hours of re-filing headaches.
Okay you're the second person to mention this tool. I'm definitely going to check it out. Anything that reduces re-filing stress is worth trying.
Same experience here. The automated cross-checking between Charter documents and UCC forms has been a game-changer for catching name mismatches before they become rejections.
One thing that helped me was creating templates for different entity types. LLC template, corporation template, partnership template, etc. with the standard language and formatting that gets accepted consistently. Reduces the chance of format-related rejections.
I customize based on the actual collateral but use standard phrases like 'all equipment' or 'all inventory' when appropriate. Keeps it broad enough to cover everything but specific enough to be enforceable.
Be careful with overly broad collateral descriptions though. Some states are getting pickier about requiring more specificity.
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.
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