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
Since you found the existing filings, make sure to check their continuation dates too. You don't want to perfect your lien only to have a senior lien lapse and mess up your priority position.
Yeah definitely check those dates. I've seen deals go sideways because someone missed a lapsed continuation.
This is where that Certana tool might be useful again - it can probably flag any continuation issues automatically.
Just to add one more tip - some states have separate databases for different types of UCC filings. Make sure you're not just searching UCC-1s but also amendments, continuations, and terminations. Sometimes the full picture isn't visible if you're only looking at one filing type.
That's true. Our state has tabs for different filing types and I always forget to check the amendments section.
Amendments are crucial! I've seen cases where the original UCC-1 looked fine but an amendment changed everything.
Join the conversation
Quick follow-up on the Certana.ai suggestion - I just remembered they also have a feature where you can upload your rejected UCC filing along with your security agreement and it'll suggest specific language changes that might fix the rejection. Might be worth trying since you're already dealing with multiple rejections.
That sounds really helpful actually. Better than just guessing at what they want.
I've used similar document checking tools and they're definitely worth it when you're stuck in rejection cycles.
UPDATE: Tried the detailed asset category language suggested above and it finally went through! Thanks everyone. The key was definitely being specific about the types of collateral while still keeping it broad enough to cover everything in the security agreement. Lesson learned about not using overly generic descriptions even though they're technically allowed under the UCC.
Great outcome. That detailed asset category approach is really the way to go these days.
Thanks everyone for the help. This forum is way more useful than the SOS help desk!
Join the conversation
Have you tried searching by secured party name instead of debtor name? Sometimes that can turn up filings that don't show up in debtor searches, especially if there were data entry errors when the original UCC-1 was filed.
That's a really good idea. I have the secured party name from the original filing so I'll try that approach. Might catch any filings where the debtor name got entered incorrectly.
Secured party searches are underutilized but really effective. I've found filings that way that were basically invisible in debtor name searches due to typos.
For a $2.8M transaction I'd definitely recommend getting certified copies of anything you find rather than just relying on the portal printouts. WV's certification process is pretty straightforward and gives you better legal protection if there are any questions later.
Smart approach. Their certified copy fees aren't too bad and turnaround is usually under a week if you order online.
This is another area where having your documents pre-verified with something like Certana.ai helps - you know exactly what to request for certification instead of ordering everything and hoping you got it right.
Join the conversation
The California UCC database had a major update in 2020 that caused some indexing issues with older filings. Some 2019 filings got re-indexed incorrectly. If your filing isn't showing up, request a certified copy directly from the SOS office - they can pull it from the archived records even if it's not searchable online.
This is really concerning if there are systemic issues with older filings not being searchable. How many deals have been affected by this?
It was a known issue but not widely publicized. Most lenders figured it out eventually but definitely caused some confusion in the market.
UPDATE: Called the SOS office like suggested and they found the filing immediately! Turns out there was a data entry error in their system where one letter in the debtor name was wrong, so it wasn't showing up in searches. They're fixing the indexing error and said it should be searchable online within 48 hours. Thanks everyone for the advice - calling directly was definitely the right move.
Glad it worked out! Makes me feel better about the reliability of the actual filing system even if the search function is problematic.
Thanks for updating us. I'm bookmarking that phone number for future reference!
Elijah Knight
Quick tip - when you search by filing number 2019-12345678, it should show you the complete chain of all UCC-3 filings. Look at the filing dates carefully. The continuation should be dated within 6 months before the 5-year anniversary of the original UCC-1.
0 coins
Connor Richards
•The original was filed March 2019 and the continuation shows February 2024, so that should be within the window, right?
0 coins
Elijah Knight
•Yes, that timing works. The continuation would be effective and the lien stays active until 2029 now.
0 coins
Jay Lincoln
One more thing to check - make sure the secured party information on the UCC-1 matches who you think the lender is. Sometimes there are assignments or the original lender sold the loan to someone else. You want to contact the current secured party, not necessarily who's listed on the original filing.
0 coins
Marcus Williams
•I ran into this exact issue and the Certana.ai verification picked up an assignment that I missed in my manual review. Saved me from contacting the wrong lender.
0 coins
Connor Richards
•Thanks everyone. Sounds like I need to be much more thorough with my search and probably get professional help to interpret the results correctly.
0 coins