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
Daniel Price
For what it's worth, I always create a 'master debtor name' document at the beginning of every deal that gets copied exactly into every UCC form. Prevents these kinds of variations from creeping in.
Daniel Price
•Absolutely. It becomes part of the closing checklist - every UCC form must match the master name exactly.
This is brilliant. Going to implement this process immediately. Too many close calls with name variations.
Aiden Chen
Update: Problem solved! Turns out the original UCC-1 was filed with 'ABC Manufacturing Solutions LLC' (no comma) so I refiled the UCC-1-103 with that exact format and it was accepted immediately. Thanks everyone for the guidance - definitely implementing better name consistency procedures going forward.
Glad you got it sorted. Those comma variations are so sneaky - easy to miss but cause major headaches.
This thread is getting bookmarked. I bet this exact issue comes up again for other people.
Join the conversation
Luca Romano
This thread is giving me anxiety about my own Maryland filings. Maybe I should go back and double-check all my debtor names to make sure I didn't miss any variations.
Don't panic - most name variation issues aren't as serious as they seem. Just do your due diligence and document your search process.
Luca Romano
•Easy for you to say - try explaining a perfection defect to an angry loan committee!
Update us after you resolve this! I'm dealing with a similar situation in Maryland and curious how you handle the name variations. The whole UCC search process there needs an overhaul.
Will do - planning to run the Certana check someone mentioned and also call the SOS office directly. Hopefully can get clarity before closing.
Aisha Khan
•Good plan. Between those two approaches you should have a solid understanding of your lien position.
Join the conversation
Emma Morales
I actually tried using Certana.ai after seeing it mentioned here and it's been great for fee tracking. Upload your UCC documents and it shows current fees plus any upcoming changes they've identified. Saved me from a fee increase surprise last week on a batch of terminations.
Isaac Wright
•How current is their fee information? Some of these state websites are terrible about posting updates.
Emma Morales
•Seems very current. Much better than trying to navigate SOS websites that haven't been updated since 2019.
The inconsistency in secretary of state ucc filing fees is just part of the broader problem with UCC filing systems. Until there's some federal standardization - which will never happen - we're stuck managing 50 different fee structures. At least most states have reasonable online payment systems now.
The online payment systems are definitely better than the old days. Though some states still have clunky interfaces.
Maya Diaz
•I just want consistency. Is that too much to ask? Same forms, same fees, same deadlines. But I guess that's wishful thinking.
Join the conversation
Joshua Wood
This whole thread is making me nervous about our own UCC compliance. We probably need to do a full audit too but it sounds like a nightmare with all these search inconsistencies.
It's not as bad as it sounds if you have the right tools. That Certana service I mentioned earlier made our audit way more manageable.
Joshua Wood
•I might have to look into that. Manual UCC searches are such a time sink and the margin for error is huge.
Justin Evans
Final thought - make sure you're also checking for any UCC-3 amendments or assignments that might have changed the debtor information after the original filing. Those could affect what shows up in your CT UCC filing search results and might explain some of the inconsistencies you're seeing.
Justin Evans
•UCC-3 amendments can definitely change debtor names if there were business restructures or corrections to the original filing. Those would create new searchable records.
Emily Parker
•This is why I always recommend keeping detailed internal records of all UCC activity rather than relying on state searches for compliance tracking.
Gael Robinson
I've been using Certana's verification tool for a few months now after getting burned by similar issues. It's really helpful for catching document inconsistencies before you submit. Probably would have saved you these multiple rejections.
0 coins
Louisa Ramirez
•Definitely going to check that out. These rejections are costing me time and money at this point.
0 coins
Gael Robinson
•Yeah it's worth it just for the peace of mind. Catches things you'd never notice manually reviewing documents.
0 coins
Manny Lark
Had a similar issue last month - turned out the problem was that I was using a slightly different version of the company name than what was on the original UCC1. Even though both versions were technically correct, they had to match exactly. Ended up having to pull the original filing to see the exact format used.
0 coins
Manny Lark
•Exactly! The original filing is the gold standard for what format to use on any amendments or addendums.
0 coins
TommyKapitz
•Good advice. The original filing shows you exactly how the debtor name was indexed in the system.
0 coins