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
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.
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
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
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!
LunarEclipse
Just want to echo what others said about checking the official entity records first. I made the mistake once of using the name from a contract instead of the Secretary of State database and it caused a huge mess. Now I always verify against official records before drafting any written security agreement.
0 coins
Yara Khalil
•Good reminder. The contracts team doesn't always use the exact legal entity name.
0 coins
LunarEclipse
•Exactly - they use whatever sounds better or fits on the signature line, but that's not always the legal name for UCC purposes.
0 coins
Keisha Brown
Hope this works out for you! Refinancing delays over UCC technicalities are the worst. Keep us posted on whether the correction approach works.
0 coins
MidnightRider
•Will do - this thread has been super helpful. At least I know I'm not the only one dealing with these name matching headaches.
0 coins
Paolo Esposito
•definitely not alone - seems like every other deal has some version of this issue
0 coins