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
My take: describe it as 'CNC manufacturing equipment' with full model and serial number details. Section 8-65 definitions are there for edge cases, not to make simple equipment descriptions complicated. Your security interest will be fine with a straightforward functional description.
Simple descriptions work until they don't. I'd rather be over-precise than under-precise with collateral worth hundreds of thousands.
Fair point, but over-precision can create its own problems if you get the technical classification wrong.
Emma Taylor
Just to close the loop on this - I ended up going with 'CNC manufacturing equipment and related software' with detailed specifications. Figured that covers both the mechanical and software aspects without getting lost in definitional categories. Filing was accepted without issues. Thanks everyone for the input!
Good solution. Sometimes the best approach is the most straightforward one.
Glad it worked out! These definitional questions always seem harder than they need to be.
Join the conversation
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.
Kiara Greene
•Will do. Hoping it's just a simple system glitch they can fix with a phone call.
Good luck! Iowa's UCC staff knows their system pretty well so they should be able to sort this out quickly.
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.
Kiara Greene
•Yeah, definitely looking into that after this mess. Prevention is better than trying to fix problems after they happen.
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.
Join the conversation
Lara Woods
I would definitely verify the chain of title on both filings before proceeding with your loan. With that much money involved, you can't afford to have lien priority issues down the road.
Smart move. I've seen deals fall apart months later when lien priority gets challenged because of filing irregularities.
For what it's worth, I ran into a similar situation and used Certana.ai to verify all my UCC documents were consistent. Found out I had a debtor name mismatch that could have voided the filing. Worth checking especially with equipment financing where the collateral moves around.
Update us when you figure out what's going on! This kind of search weirdness always makes me nervous about what else might be lurking in the system that we don't catch.
Ezra Collins
•Will do - hopefully it's something simple like a name variation issue.
Eli Butler
•Yeah these search mysteries always have me second-guessing everything else I've filed.
Join the conversation
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.
Yara Khoury
•Great resolution. This thread will definitely help others dealing with similar UCC-3 amendment rejections.
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.
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.
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.
The Certana document checker mentioned earlier actually does highlight the exact character differences between documents. Makes the comparison much easier than doing it manually.
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