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 :)

Diego Mendoza

Florida UCC Search Results Not Matching What I Filed - Anyone Else Having This Issue?

I'm getting really frustrated trying to search UCC filings Florida and verify my recent submissions. Filed three UCC-1s last month through the Florida Secretary of State portal for equipment financing deals, but when I search ucc filings florida using the filing numbers, two of them aren't showing up in the results even though I got confirmation emails. The third one shows up but with a different debtor name format than what I submitted (they added middle initial that wasn't on my original form). Has anyone else had problems with Florida's UCC search function lately? I need to provide proof of filing to my lenders ASAP and this is making me look incompetent. The deals were for $180k, $95k, and $230k so these aren't small potatoes. Starting to wonder if I made errors on the debtor names that caused rejections I never got notified about.

Ethan Brown

•

Florida SOS is notorious for this stuff. I always call their UCC department directly when search results don't make sense. They can look up filings by confirmation number even if they're not showing in public search.

0 coins

Ethan Brown

•

Yeah, (850) 245-6052 gets you to the UCC section directly. They're usually pretty helpful if you have your confirmation emails.

0 coins

Yuki Yamamoto

•

Just called that number last week for a similar issue. They were able to confirm my filing existed even though search wasn't showing it. Apparently there's sometimes a delay between filing acceptance and search database updates.

0 coins

Carmen Ruiz

•

Update: called the UCC department and they confirmed all three of my filings are in the system! Two of them had processing delays and one had a debtor name auto-correction that threw off my searches. Crisis averted but this was way too stressful.

0 coins

Zara Malik

•

For future filings, seriously consider using that Certana verification tool I mentioned. Would have caught the name formatting issue upfront and saved you all this stress.

0 coins

Diego Mendoza

•

Definitely looking into better verification processes. Can't go through this panic again with every filing.

0 coins

Noah Ali

Active UCC Filing Shows Wrong Debtor Name - Equipment Lease at Risk

I'm dealing with a nightmare scenario and need some advice fast. We have an active UCC filing on a construction equipment lease that's been in place for 18 months, but I just discovered the debtor name on the UCC-1 doesn't exactly match what's on the lease agreement. The filing shows 'ABC Construction LLC' but our lease agreement is with 'ABC Construction, LLC' - notice the comma difference. The lease is worth $340,000 and we're worried this could void our security interest if the debtor defaults. Has anyone dealt with active UCC filing name discrepancies like this? Do we need to file a UCC-3 amendment immediately or is this considered a minor variation that won't affect perfection? The equipment is mobile so we can't rely on possession, and I'm losing sleep over whether our lien is actually enforceable right now.

One more thing to consider - make sure your UCC-3 amendment gets filed in the same office where you filed the original UCC-1. If you filed centrally with the Secretary of State, that's where the amendment needs to go. Don't accidentally file it locally when the original was filed centrally.

0 coins

Good point about filing location. I've seen people mess this up and then wonder why their amendment doesn't show up linked to the original filing.

0 coins

Noah Ali

•

Filed it in the same place - Secretary of State online portal. The system automatically linked it to the original filing number, so that part worked correctly.

0 coins

Grace Lee

•

Really glad you got this sorted out quickly! For future reference, I've started using Certana's document checker before filing any UCCs. It's saved me from several potential mistakes by automatically comparing debtor names between loan docs and UCC forms. Takes maybe 2 minutes to upload the PDFs and get a verification report, but it's prevented headaches like what you just went through.

0 coins

The Boss

•

The automated verification is really helpful for catching those tiny details that are easy to miss when you're manually comparing documents. Especially useful when you're doing high-volume filing.

0 coins

I was skeptical about using automated tools for UCC work, but after trying Certana on a few test cases, it actually caught inconsistencies I had missed. Sometimes a fresh set of eyes (even digital ones) helps spot issues.

0 coins

Esteban Tate

UCC termination form california - SOS rejected my filing twice

Need help with a UCC termination in California that keeps getting rejected by the SOS. I'm handling the payoff for a 2019 equipment loan and the bank sent me what they said was the 'standard termination paperwork' but California's system has bounced it back twice now. First rejection said something about the debtor name not matching exactly, second time they rejected it for 'insufficient collateral description reference.' The original UCC-1 was filed in 2019 for $275,000 worth of manufacturing equipment and I thought terminations were supposed to be straightforward once the loan is paid off. Anyone dealt with California's specific requirements for UCC termination forms? The bank is getting impatient and I'm worried about missing something important that could leave this lien hanging out there.

Raul Neal

•

For what it's worth, I tried Certana's document verification after reading about it here and it definitely caught stuff I missed. Uploaded my UCC-1 and termination draft and it flagged that I had the wrong county listed (original was filed in LA County but I put Orange County on the termination). Simple mistake but would have caused another rejection.

0 coins

Esteban Tate

•

Sounds like that tool could save me a lot of time. Better to catch errors before filing than keep getting rejections.

0 coins

Jenna Sloan

•

Yeah, third rejection starts to look bad to clients. Better to get it right the first time.

0 coins

Update us when you get it figured out! Always curious to hear what the actual issue was on these tricky California terminations.

0 coins

Esteban Tate

•

Will do. Going to double-check everything mentioned here and probably try that document checker before filing again.

0 coins

Good plan. Take your time and get it right rather than rushing into a third rejection.

0 coins

Connor Murphy

California SOS UCC search showing different debtor name - need help matching records

I'm trying to do a california sos ucc search on a commercial loan file and running into issues with name variations. The original UCC-1 was filed under 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' but when I search the California SOS database, it's showing up under 'ABC Manufacturing, LLC' (with the comma). This is for a $450K equipment financing deal and my compliance team is freaking out because they can't find the exact match in the california sos ucc search results. The debtor swears they've always used the name without the comma on all their corporate docs, but the SOS system seems to have added it automatically during filing. Has anyone dealt with this kind of name discrepancy when doing california sos ucc searches? I need to know if this affects the perfection of our security interest or if there's a way to verify which version is actually on file. The continuation is due in 8 months and I want to make sure we're using the correct debtor name format.

Omar Hassan

•

For what it's worth, I've never seen a continuation rejected due to minor punctuation differences in LLC names, especially when using the california sos ucc system. The bigger risk is completely wrong names or missing key words. A comma shouldn't be a deal-breaker.

0 coins

Omar Hassan

•

Probably, but it's better to be cautious with UCC filings. The consequences of getting it wrong can be severe.

0 coins

Chloe Taylor

•

Agreed. I'd rather spend extra time double-checking than deal with an unperfected security interest later.

0 coins

ShadowHunter

•

Just went through this exact scenario last week! Ended up calling the California SOS UCC division directly and they confirmed that search display formatting can differ from the actual filed document. They recommended ordering a certified copy to see the exact filing details. Took about $15 and 3 hours to get the electronic copy.

0 coins

Connor Murphy

•

Perfect, I'll do exactly that. Thanks for sharing your experience and the timeline/cost details.

0 coins

ShadowHunter

•

No problem! Once I had the certified copy, the continuation filing was straightforward. Used the exact name format from the original UCC-1 and it was accepted without any issues.

0 coins

Adrian Connor

UCC 9-203 attachment requirements causing lender compliance headaches - what am I missing?

Been working through some secured transaction compliance issues and UCC 9-203 attachment requirements are giving me fits. We've got a commercial equipment loan where the debtor signed everything, we have rights in the collateral, but our compliance officer is questioning whether we actually have 'attachment' under 9-203. The borrower took possession of the equipment 3 months ago, but there's some confusion about whether our security agreement language is sufficient. I thought attachment was pretty straightforward - authenticated security agreement, value given, debtor has rights in collateral - but apparently there are some nuances I'm missing. Anyone dealt with 9-203 attachment issues that looked solid but turned out to have problems? This is for a $485k equipment financing deal and I really don't want to discover we don't have a perfected security interest.

Have you considered whether your equipment might be fixtures? If it's attached to real estate, you might need to worry about fixture filing requirements in addition to your basic 9-203 attachment analysis.

0 coins

Adrian Connor

•

It's mobile equipment so fixtures shouldn't be an issue, but good point. I've seen deals where fixture filing requirements caught people off guard.

0 coins

Jabari-Jo

•

Mobile equipment can still become fixtures depending on how it's installed. Worth checking whether the debtor bolted it down or integrated it into their facility.

0 coins

Kristin Frank

•

The attachment timing issue you described is really common in equipment financing. One solution is to have the debtor sign a security agreement that specifically covers after-acquired property, then your security interest automatically attaches when they acquire the equipment later.

0 coins

Leo Simmons

•

If you want to be absolutely sure about the after-acquired property coverage, you could run your security agreement through Certana.ai's document checker. It analyzes whether your collateral descriptions actually support after-acquired claims and flags potential gaps.

0 coins

Kristin Frank

•

That after-acquired language should definitely help with your 9-203 attachment timing. Just make sure it's broad enough to cover the specific equipment in question.

0 coins

Prev1...352353354355356...684Next