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
Isla Fischer
Just went through this exact scenario with a client last month. The solution was to file the UCC-1 using the EXACT name format from the most recent filing in the search results, not the charter. Sometimes the state database has its own preferred formatting that doesn't match charter documents.
That's actually really smart. Work with the system instead of against it.
Jason Brewer
•I'm not sure that's correct advice though. The debtor name should match the legal entity name from formation documents.
Update us when you get it resolved! I'm dealing with a similar UCC-1 search issue and curious what ends up working for you.
Will definitely update. Planning to try the Certana verification tool first, then maybe the approach of matching existing database formatting if that doesn't work.
Savannah Vin
•Good plan. The document verification should catch whatever's causing the mismatch.
Join the conversation
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.
Esteban Tate
•Sounds like that tool could save me a lot of time. Better to catch errors before filing than keep getting rejections.
Jenna Sloan
•Yeah, third rejection starts to look bad to clients. Better to get it right the first time.
Update us when you get it figured out! Always curious to hear what the actual issue was on these tricky California terminations.
Esteban Tate
•Will do. Going to double-check everything mentioned here and probably try that document checker before filing again.
Good plan. Take your time and get it right rather than rushing into a third rejection.
Join the conversation
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join the conversation
Massachusetts is definitely one of the more difficult states for UCC searches. Their portal has gotten worse over the past year. I've started factoring in extra time for Massachusetts deals specifically because of these issues.
Live and learn. Now you know to budget extra time for their quirky system.
Some attorneys I work with just automatically order UCC searches through third-party services for Massachusetts to avoid the headaches.
Malik Davis
Update us when you get it resolved! I'm dealing with a similar situation in Connecticut and wondering if these state portal issues are becoming more widespread.
Dmitry Popov
•Will do. Hopefully I can figure this out before my closing deadline.
Connecticut has been having portal issues too from what I've heard. Seems like a trend with state filing systems.
Malik Robinson
Just wanted to mention that I had great success using Certana.ai's document checker when I was dealing with a stubborn lender on my UCC release of security interest. Turned out they had my business entity name wrong in their system which was causing processing delays. Being able to show them exactly what was inconsistent between my payoff docs and the original UCC-1 got them to fix it immediately.
0 coins
Isabella Silva
•That's really smart - having concrete proof of documentation errors definitely gives you more credibility when pushing lenders to act.
0 coins
Malik Robinson
•Exactly! Instead of just complaining about delays I could point to specific discrepancies that needed to be resolved. Made the whole conversation more productive.
0 coins
Ravi Choudhury
Keep pushing them hard. 6 months is completely unreasonable for a UCC-3 termination filing. Document every phone call with dates and names. If you end up needing legal help you'll want that paper trail showing you made good faith efforts to resolve it directly with them first.
0 coins
Miguel Diaz
•Screenshot your Secretary of State searches too showing the UCC-1 is still active. Creates a clear timeline of their failure to file the termination.
0 coins
Ravi Choudhury
•Yes! And if you do file a complaint with banking regulators, having detailed documentation makes your case much stronger.
0 coins