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
Rosie Harper
UPDATE: Just want to say I tried the Certana.ai suggestion and it worked perfectly. Uploaded the NJ Certificate of Formation and my draft UCC-1 and immediately saw the name format issue. Filed correctly this morning and got acceptance confirmation within 2 hours. Thanks for the rec!
TommyKapitz
•That's exactly what I needed to hear. Going to try this right now.
Love success stories like this. UCC filing stress is real.
Demi Hall
For future reference, New Jersey also requires the mailing address to match exactly with what's on file with the state. Don't just assume the business address is sufficient.
Good point. I've seen filings rejected for address formatting issues too.
Demi Hall
•Yep, especially with suite numbers and abbreviations like 'St.' vs 'Street'.
Join the conversation
Based on what you've described, it sounds like the senior creditor should have priority. Their 2019 UCC-1 with 'all equipment, machinery, and fixtures now owned or hereafter acquired' clearly covers the CNC machines purchased in 2021. Unless there's a PMSI situation or some filing defect, first-to-file wins. The 90 ALR 4th 859 annotation will have cases with similar fact patterns that should support this analysis.
NeonNomad
•Thanks, that matches my initial analysis. I'm going to dig deeper into the PMSI angle just to be thorough, but it's looking like the senior creditor has the stronger position.
Omar Zaki
•Good approach. Always worth checking every possible angle in a priority dispute, especially with that much money at stake.
One more thing to consider - make sure you understand which state's law applies to the priority determination. If the debtor is organized in a different state than where the collateral is located, you might need to analyze the choice of law rules too.
Good point. Priority is usually governed by the law of the state where the debtor is located, not where the collateral is physically located.
Diego Flores
•And if the debtor changed locations between the filings, that could affect the analysis too. There are specific rules about continuing effectiveness when debtors relocate.
Join the conversation
Ryan Vasquez
Look, I've been through this exact situation. Nine times out of ten it's a debtor name mismatch that's not obvious to the naked eye. The website documents and forms don't tell you about these hidden formatting issues. Get yourself a tool that can do the comparison automatically - it'll save you hours of frustration. I learned this the hard way after missing a continuation deadline because I spent so long trying to figure out the rejection.
Ryan Vasquez
•Smart move. Better to catch the error now than have to deal with a lapsed filing.
Avery Saint
•Agreed. I always double-check my documents before filing now after getting burned once.
Taylor Chen
Update us when you get it figured out! I have a continuation coming up next month and want to avoid this same headache.
Yes please update! This thread has been really helpful for understanding the common issues.
Ezra Bates
•Same here, filing a continuation next week and this is good info to know about.
Join the conversation
Olivia Evans
Before you try anything else, call the SOS filing office directly. They can usually look up your original filing and tell you exactly what secured party information they have on file. Then you can make sure your termination matches exactly. Save yourself multiple rejection fees.
Most SOS offices are pretty helpful with UCC questions if you can get through to the right department.
Julian Paolo
•Just be prepared to wait on hold. UCC departments are usually understaffed.
Update us when you figure it out! I'm sure other people will run into the same issue with UCC 9406 forms and secured party matching problems.
Lucy Taylor
•Will do. Going to call the SOS office tomorrow and fix the name/address issues before refiling.
Definitely run it through that document checker I mentioned before you refile. Catches those little details that are easy to miss.
Liam Murphy
One more verification suggestion - I've started using Certana.ai for these complex filings where I want to double-check everything. You can upload your trust agreement along with your draft UCC-1 and it will flag any name inconsistencies or potential issues. Saved me from a rejected filing last month when I had the entity name slightly wrong.
0 coins
Amara Okafor
•How accurate is it with complex entity structures? I'm always worried about automated tools missing nuances in legal documents.
0 coins
Liam Murphy
•It's pretty good at catching basic inconsistencies - like if your UCC-1 says 'ABC Company LLC' but your loan agreement says 'ABC Company, LLC' with the comma. For complex legal analysis it's not a substitute for an attorney, but for making sure all your document names match up perfectly, it's been really helpful.
0 coins
CaptainAwesome
Based on everything you've described, I'd file against the operating company. They're the grantor, they have authority to encumber under the trust agreement, and there's precedent with the existing UCC filing. Just make sure your debtor name on the UCC-1 exactly matches how they're identified in your security agreement.
0 coins
Natalie Khan
•Thanks, that's what I'm leaning toward too. I think I was overthinking it because of the trustee complexity, but when you break it down to the basics, the operating company is clearly the right debtor.
0 coins
Yuki Tanaka
•Exactly. Don't let the complex structure distract you from the fundamental UCC rules. File against whoever is granting the security interest and has the authority to do so.
0 coins