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 seen courts be pretty reasonable about minor name discrepancies in lien validity disputes, especially if the name is substantially similar and there's no confusion about which entity is intended. But obviously it's better to get it right from the start.
Ally Tailer
•True but why risk it? UCC-3 amendments are cheap and easy to file.
Chris Elmeda
•Agreed, I'd rather spend the time fixing it now than worry about it later if there's ever a dispute.
One more tip - if you're going to standardize your loan and security agreement template, consider adding a field that requires the exact legal name to be inserted from the formation documents rather than having it pre-filled. That way you're forced to verify it for each deal.
Smart approach. Forces you to do the verification step every time instead of just assuming the template is correct.
Cass Green
•We actually did something similar - added a checklist requirement that formation docs must be reviewed before any UCC filing. Helps catch these issues early.
Join the conversation
NeonNova
One thing to try - search using just the first few words of the debtor name instead of the full legal name. Sometimes that pulls up results with the complete information displayed. Not a permanent solution but might help for immediate lender verification.
Yuki Tanaka
•Also try searching by just the filing number if you haven't already. That sometimes bypasses the name-based search issues and shows the full record.
Carmen Diaz
•Filing number searches usually work better for pulling complete records. The name-based searches seem to have more display formatting problems.
Update us on what ends up working! I'm sure other people will run into similar search result discrepancies and your solution could help them avoid the same headaches.
Will do. Going to try the document verification approach first, then probably call the UCC office again with more specific questions about the search display issues.
Good plan. Having concrete documentation of the discrepancies will make those conversations with the state office much more productive.
Join the conversation
Malik Davis
Quick question - when you say 60 days out from lapse, are you calculating from the exact filing date or the end of the 5th year? New Mexico calculates continuation deadlines from the anniversary date, not the exact day. Just want to make sure you're not cutting it closer than you think.
Malik Davis
•Okay good, you've got some breathing room then. Still stressful though when the portal isn't cooperating.
Amina Sow
•The 6-month continuation window gives you some cushion, but better to get it done early than risk technical issues closer to the deadline.
Last resort option - you could file a UCC-3 amendment to 'correct' the debtor name to exactly match what the system expects, then immediately file the continuation. I've had to do this workaround in other states when their systems are being stubborn.
Yeah, amendments can create their own issues. Better to get the original name match working correctly.
Fair enough - it's definitely a last resort option. Try the document verification approach first.
Join the conversation
Caesar Grant
Document preservation is crucial once you decide to enforce. Send preservation notices to the debtor and any known third parties who might have received assets. Creates legal obligations and helps in court if they continue hiding stuff.
Lena Schultz
•Should preservation notices go to family members too if there's suspicion of asset transfers?
Caesar Grant
•If you have reasonable basis to believe they received business assets, yes. But be careful not to overreach without evidence.
One more thing on kabbage ucc lien enforcement - make sure Kabbage didn't mess up the original UCC-1 filing. I've seen cases where their volume filing operation resulted in incorrect debtor names, wrong addresses, or inadequate collateral descriptions. All fixable with proper amendments but you need to identify issues first.
Mae Bennett
•Agreed. Volume lenders sometimes cut corners on filing accuracy.
TommyKapitz
•Good point. I'm going to do a thorough review of our filing before taking any enforcement action. Thanks everyone for the advice.
NeonNebula
Texas UCC Code section 9.506 is based on the model UCC but Texas has been particularly strict in enforcement. The good news is that once you get the name format right, subsequent filings for the same debtor should go smoothly. It's just that initial learning curve that's painful.
0 coins
QuantumQuasar
•True, but we deal with new borrowers constantly so we're always facing this challenge with unfamiliar entity names.
0 coins
NeonNebula
•That's why developing a consistent verification process is so important. Whether it's manual checking or using automated tools, having a standard workflow prevents repeat mistakes.
0 coins
Isabella Costa
Just wanted to add that Texas also has specific requirements about individual debtor names under the UCC Code. If you're dealing with personal guarantors or individual borrowers, make sure you're following the "individual name" rules which are different from entity name requirements.
0 coins
Isabella Costa
•For individuals, Texas UCC Code requires the name on the debtor's driver's license or state ID. Can't use nicknames or informal versions of names.
0 coins
Keisha Johnson
•Exactly right. And if the individual doesn't have a Texas driver's license, there are specific alternative identification requirements under Texas UCC Code provisions.
0 coins