UCC Document Community

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 :)

Emma Thompson

California UCC filing rejected - debtor name mismatch on continuation

Filed a UCC-3 continuation for our equipment loan collateral last week and it got rejected by the California SOS. The rejection notice says 'debtor name does not match original filing' but I'm looking at both documents and they look identical to me. Original UCC-1 from 2020 shows 'Pacific Coast Manufacturing LLC' and my continuation shows the same exact name. Has anyone dealt with this before? The lapse date is coming up in February and I'm getting nervous about timing. Is there some hidden character or formatting issue that could cause this? The collateral is heavy machinery worth $340K so I really can't afford to mess this up.

Update us when you figure it out! I'm dealing with a similar situation in Nevada and want to know what the issue was.

0 coins

Will definitely post an update once I get this resolved. Hopefully it's something simple.

0 coins

Just a heads up - if you're getting close to your lapse date, you might want to file a new UCC-1 as backup while you sort out the continuation issue. Better safe than sorry with $340K in collateral.

0 coins

Smart thinking. A new UCC-1 would restart the 5-year period and give you breathing room.

0 coins

Just make sure to coordinate with your borrower about filing a new UCC-1 if that's the route you go.

0 coins

Ava Williams

UCC 1 filing complications with entity incorporation - need guidance

Running into some serious headaches with a UCC 1 filing and hoping someone here has dealt with this before. We're securing equipment financing for a client who incorporated in a different jurisdiction but operates locally. The debtor name on their articles of incorporation has some quirks that don't match exactly with how they appear on their loan documents. Our lender is getting nervous about potential perfection issues if we file the UCC-1 with slight name variations. Has anyone handled entity name discrepancies between incorporation documents and financing paperwork? The collateral is pretty substantial (manufacturing equipment worth about $2.8M) so we can't afford to mess this up. Really need to get this filing right the first time since the loan closes next week.

One more thing to consider - make sure your collateral description is solid too. With $2.8M in equipment, you want to be very specific about what's covered. Serial numbers, model numbers, manufacturer details if possible.

0 coins

You can always do a more general description on the UCC-1 and attach detailed schedules as exhibits.

0 coins

Exactly. Something like 'all equipment' or 'all machinery and equipment' covers you broadly, then the loan docs have the specifics.

0 coins

Update us on how this turns out! Always interested to hear how these name discrepancy situations get resolved. And definitely get that UCC-1 filed with the correct debtor name - your lender will sleep better knowing the security interest is properly perfected.

0 coins

Smart move. Better to be overly cautious with entity names than sorry later.

0 coins

Good luck with the closing! Sounds like you've got a solid plan now.

0 coins

Mei Liu

UCC amendments causing debtor name verification headaches - anyone else?

Having a nightmare with UCC amendments right now. Filed a UCC-3 last month to add additional collateral to an existing filing, but the SOS system keeps flagging potential debtor name mismatches between my original UCC-1 from 2022 and the amendment. The business changed their registered name slightly (added 'LLC' formally) but I used the exact name from their current articles of incorporation. Now I'm getting conflicting advice - some say use the original filing name exactly, others say use current legal name. The lender is breathing down my neck because this amendment needs to be perfected before their audit next week. Has anyone dealt with this debtor name consistency issue on UCC amendments? I'm worried about creating a break in the perfection chain.

Just want to add that I used that Certana.ai tool someone mentioned earlier for a similar name consistency issue and it was actually really helpful. The document comparison feature caught several discrepancies between my UCC-1 and UCC-3 that I would have missed manually. Worth checking out if you're dealing with complex amendments.

0 coins

Mei Liu

•

Good to hear another positive experience. I'm definitely going to try it before I submit anything else.

0 coins

Same here, had good results with their verification system. Especially useful when you're working with multiple entity name changes like I was dealing with last month.

0 coins

UPDATE: Thanks everyone for the advice. I ended up following the suggestion to file a debtor name change amendment first, then the collateral amendment. Both were accepted without issues. The Certana.ai verification tool was really helpful in making sure all the details matched up correctly between documents. Crisis averted and the lender's audit went smoothly!

0 coins

Great outcome. The two-step approach really is the safest way to handle name changes with UCC amendments.

0 coins

Thanks for posting the update. I'm bookmarking this thread for future reference - very helpful discussion.

0 coins

Diego Mendoza

UCC 1 filing search showing weird results - am I missing something?

Been doing UCC 1 filing search on our state's SOS portal and getting some strange results that don't match what I expected. We have a client who swears they never filed a UCC-1 against this particular debtor, but when I search the debtor name it's showing up clear as day with their secured party info. The filing date is from 2019 and shows active status. Client is adamant they only filed against a similar company name (think ABC Manufacturing vs ABC Manufacturing LLC). Now they're worried about potential liability issues if this was filed in error. Has anyone dealt with a situation where a UCC 1 filing search reveals filings you didn't expect to find? I'm trying to figure out if this could be a clerical error during the original filing process or if there's something else going on. The debtor names are close enough that I could see how this might have happened, but the client's records don't show any business relationship with this exact entity. Any thoughts on how to verify whether this was an intentional filing or a mistake?

Check the collateral description on the UCC-1 filing too. Sometimes that can give you clues about whether the filing was intentional or accidental. If the collateral doesn't match anything your client would have had a security interest in, that's another indicator something went wrong.

0 coins

Good suggestion. I'll review the collateral description when I get the certified copy of the filing.

0 coins

Also look at the filing date and see if it corresponds with any transactions your client was involved in around that time.

0 coins

Had a similar situation where we used Certana.ai to verify filing accuracy and it caught a debtor name discrepancy we missed. The tool flagged that our UCC-1 had a slightly different spelling of the company name compared to the charter documents. Saved us from a potential perfection issue down the road.

0 coins

How detailed is the comparison? Does it catch minor differences like punctuation or abbreviations?

0 coins

Yes, it's pretty thorough about catching those kinds of details that could cause problems later.

0 coins

Liam O'Sullivan

UCC 9-328 Priority Rules - Equipment Financing vs Bank Line of Credit

Having a priority dispute with our bank over equipment we financed last year. We filed a UCC-1 on the manufacturing equipment in March 2024, but the bank is claiming their blanket lien from 2023 gives them priority under UCC 9-328. The equipment was purchased with our financing after their general business loan was already in place. Bank's UCC-1 just says 'all equipment, inventory, and accounts' while ours specifically describes the CNC machines by serial number. Our loan documents clearly state the equipment secures our financing. Bank is threatening to foreclose on the equipment for their separate default. Does UCC 9-328 really give them priority just because they filed first, even though our lien is more specific and we actually financed the equipment purchase? This is a $180K dispute and we need to understand our position before litigation costs get out of hand.

Subordination agreements can be complex but they're often more practical than fighting over priority. Especially when the debtor is current on one loan but not the other.

0 coins

Exactly. Banks sometimes prefer certain payment over uncertain foreclosure proceeds, especially for specialized equipment that might be hard to liquidate.

0 coins

Prev1...289290291292293...684Next