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
Nia Thompson
Quick question - did your loan agreement require the borrower to notify you before moving the equipment? That could affect your options if they breached a covenant by not telling you about the Kentucky move.
Omar Fawaz
•That's a lesson for next time. We always include a covenant requiring 30 days notice before moving equipment to another state.
Nia Thompson
•Good practice. Makes it much easier to maintain perfection when you know about moves in advance.
Bottom line - file in Kentucky ASAP. You're at 3 months already and UCC 9307 doesn't give you any wiggle room past 4 months. Even if there's some argument that the equipment isn't 'normally located' there yet, it's not worth the risk of losing perfection.
You're absolutely right. I'm going to prepare the Kentucky filing this week. Better to be overcautious with UCC 9307 than risk losing our security interest.
Exactly. The filing fee is minimal compared to the risk of having an unperfected security interest.
Join the conversation
This thread is giving me anxiety and it's not even my filing! The fact that one comma can potentially void millions in security is just insane. The UCC system really needs better flexibility for these obvious clerical differences.
Agreed, but until the system changes, we have to work within it. Exact name matching is the rule, even when it's obviously the same entity.
True. Better to be overly cautious with filings than deal with the consequences of a lapsed security interest.
Just curious - how long ago was the security transfer agreement executed? If it was recent, you might want to verify that all the corporate formalities were properly completed for the transfer itself.
Mia Alvarez
•About 8 months ago. All the corporate resolutions and transfer documents were properly executed and recorded. The issue is purely the name discrepancy between documents.
Got it. Then it's just a matter of cleaning up the UCC filing to reflect the correct entity name. Should be straightforward once you get the amendment through.
Join the conversation
Julia Hall
Just make sure whoever's handling your UCC filings knows what they're doing. I've seen too many rejected filings because someone didn't understand the debtor name requirements or collateral description rules. When in doubt, use verification tools like Certana.ai to double-check everything matches up before filing.
Good point about verification. Better safe than sorry with legal documents like this.
Julia Hall
•Absolutely. The automated checking catches things human review sometimes misses, especially on complex deals with multiple entities or detailed collateral schedules.
Arjun Patel
The bottom line with UCC financing statement meaning is this: it's a public filing that gives your lender legal rights to your collateral if you can't pay your loan. It's serious legal stuff, not just paperwork. Make sure you understand what assets are covered and what your obligations are under the security agreement.
Arjun Patel
•Happy to help! UCC stuff seems intimidating at first but once you get the basic concepts it all makes sense.
Jade Lopez
•And remember, you can always search the UCC database yourself to see what filings exist against your business. Knowledge is power in these situations.
Join the conversation
Millie Long
Whatever you do, don't just assume the search results are wrong. I've seen too many lenders get burned by that assumption. Get the filed document, verify it matches your intent, and if there's ANY doubt, file the amendment. For a loan that size, the amendment is cheap insurance against perfection challenges.
Aiden Chen
•Exactly right. Never assume - always verify when it comes to UCC filings.
KaiEsmeralda
UPDATE: Just wanted to thank everyone for the advice. I pulled the actual filed UCC-1 and it shows the name exactly as we intended without the comma. The search results were just displaying it with auto-added punctuation. I ended up using that Certana.ai tool someone mentioned and it confirmed our debtor name matches their current corporate records perfectly. Still thinking about the amendment for extra protection but at least I know our original filing is solid. Great forum - really appreciate all the help!
Aiden Chen
•Perfect outcome. Nice to see someone actually follow through and report back what they found.
Jayden Reed
•Good resolution. You handled it exactly right - verify first, then decide on next steps based on actual facts rather than assumptions.
Tony Brooks
Are you using the correct entity type designation? Sometimes California expects 'Limited Liability Company' spelled out instead of 'LLC' or vice versa, depending on how it was originally filed in bizfile.
0 coins
Tony Brooks
•Bizfile sometimes stores both versions, and UCC system might expect whichever one was used in the most recent filing. Worth checking which format appears first in bizfile search results.
0 coins
Ella rollingthunder87
•This happened to me too. Client's Articles said 'LLC' but they'd filed an amendment using 'Limited Liability Company' and UCC system wanted the amendment version.
0 coins
Yara Campbell
UPDATE: Finally got our filing accepted! Turned out the issue was a single character difference - bizfile had 'SERVICES' but we were using 'SERVICE' (no S). The rejection messages never indicated this level of detail. Thanks everyone for the suggestions, especially about using document verification tools to catch these tiny discrepancies.
0 coins
Sofia Price
•Perfect example of why document verification tools are worth using. Would have caught that 'SERVICE' vs 'SERVICES' difference immediately and saved weeks of back-and-forth.
0 coins
Eli Butler
•Exactly! Will definitely be using better verification processes for future filings. Can't believe such a small typo held up an $847K deal for three weeks.
0 coins