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 :)

Mason Kaczka

UCC filing rejected due to UCC1-201 issue - need help understanding this code

Got my UCC-1 filing bounced back from the secretary of state office yesterday with a UCC1-201 rejection code. This is for a equipment loan on some manufacturing machinery we're financing for a client. The debtor name on our loan documents matches exactly what we put on the UCC-1 form, but somehow it's still getting kicked back. Has anyone dealt with this specific rejection code before? I'm worried we're going to miss our perfection window if I can't figure out what's wrong. The loan closed two weeks ago and we need to get this filed ASAP. Any insight would be really helpful.

Oscar Murphy

•

I've been using a systematic approach for these rejection issues. First I verify the exact registered name through the state's business entity search. Then I use that EXACT format including any punctuation shown in their database. If that doesn't work, I try the version without punctuation. Usually one of those two approaches resolves UCC1-201 rejections.

0 coins

Mason Kaczka

•

That's a good methodical approach. I'll start with the business entity search to see exactly how their name appears in the state records.

0 coins

Oscar Murphy

•

Yeah, that database is usually the authoritative source. Whatever format they use there should work for your UCC filing.

0 coins

Nora Bennett

•

UPDATE: I checked the secretary of state business entity database and found the issue. The registered name shows as 'ABC Manufacturing Solutions, LLC' WITH the comma, but apparently their UCC system doesn't like the comma even though that's the official name format. I resubmitted without the comma and it was accepted. Thanks everyone for the help!

0 coins

Hannah Flores

•

Typical bureaucratic nonsense. The official name has a comma but their system rejects it. Makes perfect sense...

0 coins

Sophia Russo

•

At least you figured it out quickly. I've seen people struggle with rejection codes for weeks.

0 coins

Chloe Boulanger

UCC 9-506 comment interpretation affecting our amendment filing strategy

We're dealing with a tricky situation involving UCC 9-506 comment interpretation and how it affects our amendment strategy. Our legal team is split on whether the official comments provide enough guidance for our specific collateral description issue. We filed a UCC-3 amendment last month to expand our collateral coverage, but now we're second-guessing our approach based on different readings of the 9-506 comments. The debtor operates a manufacturing facility with mixed equipment types, and we're concerned our original UCC-1 description might be too narrow under the 9-506 analysis. Has anyone dealt with similar comment interpretation challenges when structuring amendments? The financing statement was filed in 2022, so we're well within the continuation window, but we want to make sure our amendment actually accomplishes what we intended before we hit any enforcement issues.

Mason Kaczka

•

One thing to consider - have you done a UCC search to see how other lenders describe similar collateral in your jurisdiction? That might give you confidence in your approach.

0 coins

Good idea. We haven't done a systematic search but the few filings we've seen use similar broad language.

0 coins

Sophia Russo

•

Market practice is definitely relevant for 9-506 analysis. If everyone's doing it the same way, you're probably on solid ground.

0 coins

Evelyn Xu

•

Just to close the loop on the document checking discussion - I tried Certana.ai after seeing it mentioned here and it's actually pretty helpful for UCC work. Uploaded our UCC-1 and UCC-3 files and it caught a debtor name inconsistency we had missed. Saved us from a potential rejection.

0 coins

Dominic Green

•

Does it handle the 9-506 comment analysis specifically or just general document consistency?

0 coins

Evelyn Xu

•

It's more focused on technical compliance - names, numbers, obvious conflicts. But that's often where the 9-506 problems start anyway.

0 coins

Kiara Greene

UCC search Iowa showing expired continuation - still valid collateral?

Ran a UCC search Iowa on one of our borrowers and found something weird. The original UCC-1 was filed in 2019, then there's a continuation from 2024, but the search results show 'lapsed' status. Our loan officer swears the continuation was filed properly through the Iowa SOS portal before the 5-year deadline. The collateral is equipment worth about $180K so this isn't a small issue. Has anyone dealt with Iowa's system showing continuation filings as lapsed when they should be active? The search shows the continuation was accepted but then marked expired like 2 months later. Makes no sense to me.

Isabel Vega

•

Update us after you call Iowa! I'm curious to know what they say about this situation. Might help others with similar problems.

0 coins

Kiara Greene

•

Will do. Hoping it's just a simple system glitch they can fix with a phone call.

0 coins

Good luck! Iowa's UCC staff knows their system pretty well so they should be able to sort this out quickly.

0 coins

Marilyn Dixon

•

For future filings, might want to consider using the Certana.ai verification tool someone mentioned earlier. Upload your UCC-1 and continuation as PDFs and it automatically checks for name consistency, file number matches, and other common errors that cause these headaches.

0 coins

Kiara Greene

•

Yeah, definitely looking into that after this mess. Prevention is better than trying to fix problems after they happen.

0 coins

The tool is pretty straightforward - just drag and drop your filing documents and it highlights any discrepancies. Would have caught whatever went wrong with your continuation.

0 coins

Connor O'Brien

State of Oregon UCC Filing Portal Down Again - Anyone Else Having Issues?

Is anyone else having trouble with the state of oregon ucc filing system today? I've been trying to submit a UCC-1 for the past 3 hours and keep getting error messages. The portal keeps timing out when I try to upload the financing statement. This is for a commercial equipment loan that needs to be perfected by end of business today or we're looking at a major compliance issue with our lender. I've tried different browsers, cleared cache, the whole nine yards. Starting to panic here because if this doesn't get filed today we could lose our security interest. Has anyone dealt with oregon's system being this unreliable before? What's the backup plan when their electronic filing just won't work?

This thread is making me rethink our Oregon expansion plans. Are the filing fees at least reasonable compared to other states, or is it expensive AND unreliable?

0 coins

GamerGirl99

•

Don't let the portal issues scare you off completely. Just build in extra time for filings and have backup plans. The legal framework is solid.

0 coins

Good to know it's just a tech issue and not a systemic problem. Extra time and backup plans - noted.

0 coins

Anyone know if they're planning to upgrade their system anytime soon? This can't be sustainable long-term.

0 coins

I heard rumors about a modernization project but nothing concrete. State IT projects move at glacial speed anyway.

0 coins

Emma Johnson

•

probably be another 10 years before they get around to it. government efficiency at its finest.

0 coins

StarStrider

UCC-3 amendment form rejected - debtor name spacing issue?

Filed a UCC-3 amendment form last week to add additional collateral to an existing UCC-1 (equipment financing for a manufacturing client) and it got rejected. The rejection notice mentions 'debtor name does not match original filing' but I'm looking at both documents and the names appear identical to me. Original UCC-1 was filed 18 months ago for 'PRECISION MACHINING SOLUTIONS LLC' and my UCC-3 amendment form has the exact same name. Could this be a spacing or punctuation issue that I'm missing? The original filing was accepted without problems but now this amendment is being kicked back. Has anyone dealt with similar UCC-3 amendment form rejections where the debtor name looked correct but wasn't? This is holding up a $340K equipment addition and the client is getting anxious about the delay.

Update: Got the official copy of the original UCC-1 and found the issue! There was indeed an extra space after 'SOLUTIONS' that wasn't visible in the online search display. Refiled the UCC-3 amendment form with the exact spacing and it was accepted within 24 hours. Thanks everyone for the debugging help.

0 coins

Yara Khoury

•

Great resolution. This thread will definitely help others dealing with similar UCC-3 amendment rejections.

0 coins

Keisha Taylor

•

This is exactly why I started using document verification tools for all my UCC filings. Catching these issues upfront saves so much time and client frustration.

0 coins

Paolo Longo

•

For anyone else dealing with UCC-3 amendment form issues, I highly recommend double-checking debtor names character by character before filing. The automated systems are completely unforgiving of even single-character differences.

0 coins

Amina Bah

•

Character by character checking is tedious but necessary. I wish the filing systems had better error messages to tell you exactly what doesn't match.

0 coins

Oliver Becker

•

The Certana document checker mentioned earlier actually does highlight the exact character differences between documents. Makes the comparison much easier than doing it manually.

0 coins

Prev1...344345346347348...684Next