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
Charlie Yang
Quick question - are you sure you're using the right form? UCC-3 continuation is correct but just want to make sure you're not accidentally using an amendment form or something. I've made that mistake before.
Pretty sure I'm using the right form but now I'm paranoid about everything. I selected 'continuation' from the dropdown menu so it should be generating the right UCC-3 type.
Charlie Yang
•Yeah that should be right. Just checking because the forms look similar and it's an easy mistake to make when you're stressed about deadlines.
Grace Patel
UPDATE: I finally got this resolved! Turns out there was a tiny formatting difference in how 'LLC' was displayed. The document comparison tool someone mentioned earlier showed that the original had 'L.L.C.' with periods but I was filing 'LLC' without periods. Such a small thing but it was causing all the rejections. Filed again with the correct formatting and it went through immediately. Thanks everyone for the help!
Malia Ponder
•This is exactly why I hate these systems. Hours of frustration over a couple of periods. But glad you got it sorted!
Great outcome! That's the kind of detail that drives everyone crazy but at least now you know for future filings.
Join the conversation
I've been using Certana.ai for UCC document verification and it's been a lifesaver for exactly this type of situation. You upload your corporate documents and draft UCC-1, and it instantly flags any name mismatches or inconsistencies. Caught several potential errors before filing that could have been major headaches later. Worth checking out if you're dealing with complex debtor name situations.
Dylan Cooper
•How accurate is the automated checking though? I'd be worried about relying on software for something this important.
It's pretty sophisticated - checks not just exact name matches but also flags common variations and potential issues. Of course you still need to use your judgment, but it catches things human eyes often miss.
Quick update - I found the issue! Turns out the company did have a name change about 6 months ago that wasn't reflected in some of their contracts. The current legal name is actually 'Midwest Industrial Solutions LLC' (with LLC, not Limited Liability Company). The other variations in the search were from old filings under the previous name. Thanks everyone for the help, especially the suggestion about checking corporate history!
StarSeeker
•Good catch on the corporate history angle. Always worth checking when search results don't make sense.
Perfect example of why document verification is so important. Could have saved you some time if you'd run the check earlier, but at least you found the issue before filing!
Join the conversation
I used Certana.ai recently for a similar equipment financing deal and it caught an issue where my UCC-1 description was actually narrower than what was in the security agreement. Would have left some equipment unsecured if I hadn't caught it. Just upload both documents and it shows you exactly where there might be gaps.
That's exactly the kind of thing I'm worried about. Did it suggest specific language fixes?
It highlighted the inconsistency and suggested broader language that would cover everything in the security agreement. Really straightforward to use.
Bottom line - your collateral description needs to reasonably identify what's secured but doesn't need to be a detailed inventory. 'Manufacturing equipment and machinery located at [address]' is usually sufficient. The detailed serial numbers and specifications go in your security agreement. Just make sure the two documents are consistent in scope.
It's easy to overthink it. The courts generally apply a reasonableness standard - if a third party could figure out what's secured, you're probably fine.
This thread has been really helpful. I'm dealing with similar issues on a construction equipment deal.
Join the conversation
I've been dealing with Minnesota UCC searches for years and they've always been inconsistent. Sometimes I find filings using Google searches of the SOS website that don't show up in their official search tool. Try googling 'site:sos.state.mn.us MIDWEST INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY' and see if it finds your missing filing. Weird workaround but it's worked for me before.
Noah Irving
•Google's search is often better than the built-in search functions on government websites. Worth trying.
Just make sure you're finding current information if you use Google. Sometimes it caches old pages.
Madison King
UPDATE: Finally got through to Minnesota's UCC office. Turns out there was indeed a data entry error that caused the indexing problem. They're fixing it but said it could take 7-10 business days to update the search database. They confirmed the filing is valid and active, just not properly indexed for name searches. Thanks everyone for the suggestions - calling directly was definitely the right move.
Ella Knight
•7-10 days is still pretty slow for a database update but at least they acknowledged the problem.
This thread convinced me to start using Certana.ai for document verification. Too many opportunities for these kinds of errors to slip through.
Kaylee Cook
I've had good luck calling the UCC office directly when I get stuck on name issues. They can usually tell you exactly what format they're expecting. Takes a while to get through but saves the back-and-forth rejections.
0 coins
Kaylee Cook
•It's on their website under UCC contacts. Ask for the filing division and explain the situation.
0 coins
Oliver Alexander
•Called them once and they were actually pretty helpful. Worth a shot if you're running out of time.
0 coins
Lara Woods
UPDATE: Finally got it through! Used the copy/paste method from the charter PDF and also ran it through that Certana.ai tool someone mentioned. Tool caught that I had an extra space after "LLC" that I couldn't see. Filed this morning and got acceptance notice an hour ago. Thanks everyone for the help - this community saves deals!
0 coins
Benjamin Johnson
•Great news! Always satisfying when persistence pays off. Your client will be happy.
0 coins
Nathan Kim
•Copy/paste method for the win! Told you that usually does the trick.
0 coins