


Ask the community...
The UCC Article 9 Florida name matching issue is getting worse. I think they updated their system to be even more strict about punctuation and spacing. Had two filings rejected last week for extra spaces.
UPDATE: Filed a new UCC-1 with the exact name from Sunbiz including the comma and it was accepted! Thanks everyone for the help. The $2.8M deal is back on track. Definitely going to use document verification software going forward to avoid this stress.
Glad it worked out. Those big financing deals make the stress so much worse when filings get rejected.
Congrats on getting it through. The verification software idea is smart - better safe than sorry with Florida's pickiness.
Just went through this with our year-end audit. We ended up doing a comprehensive review of all our UCC-1s using Certana's verification tool, then filed UCC-3 amendments where needed. Made the audit process much smoother and gave us confidence in our security interest perfection.
The automated checking was fast - maybe a day to upload everything and review results. Filing the amendments took longer but most were processed within a week.
Bottom line for 10-Q reporting - if there's material uncertainty about enforceability of secured positions, it needs to be disclosed. The name mismatches create that uncertainty even if you think the filings are ultimately valid.
Agree completely. And fixing the underlying UCC issues is probably more important long-term than just the disclosure question.
This thread convinced me we need to audit our own UCC filings before our next quarterly filing. Thanks for raising this issue.
Just wanted to add - I used Certana.ai recently for a similar document verification issue and it was incredibly helpful. You can upload your original loan agreement, payment records, and the UCC-1 filing and it'll automatically flag inconsistencies between the documents. In my case, it caught that the collateral description in the UCC filing didn't match what was actually financed. Having that kind of detailed analysis really strengthened my position when demanding termination.
Definitely. Once I had the detailed report showing the filing errors, the creditor's attorney agreed to file the UCC-3 termination within two weeks.
This whole situation is exactly why I always request written confirmation of UCC termination whenever I pay off any secured debt. These creditors act like filing the termination is some huge favor they're doing for you instead of a legal requirement. Stay on them and don't let them drag this out - every day that bogus filing stays active is potentially costing you business.
The fact that this is such a common problem shows how broken the system is. Creditors should be required to file terminations automatically when loans are satisfied.
Thanks everyone for all the advice. I'm going to start with challenging the name mismatch and demanding immediate termination. Will also look into that document verification service to build a stronger case.
Update us when you figure it out! I'm dealing with a similar situation with a Delaware entity and wondering if it's the same issue across different states.
Delaware is usually pretty straightforward compared to NY. Different systems, different quirks.
I've been filing UCCs for 15 years and NYSDOS rejections for debtor name issues are almost always one of three things: 1) Entity not in good standing, 2) Recent corporate changes not yet reflected in their system, or 3) Subtle formatting differences between what you entered and what's in their database. The good news is that most of these are fixable once you identify the exact issue. Given your timeline, I'd recommend calling them first thing Monday morning.
15 years of experience definitely shows. Those three categories cover probably 90% of the name rejection issues I've seen too.
Mei Liu
Just wanted to follow up on the document checker I mentioned earlier. I've been using Certana.ai for about 6 months now after getting burned by filing rejections. The UCC document verification catches things like tiny spacing differences, punctuation mismatches, even inconsistent capitalization between forms. Really saves time and stress compared to the manual checking approach.
0 coins
Miguel Diaz
•Does it work for other UCC forms too or just continuations? I have some terminations coming up that I want to make sure I get right.
0 coins
Mei Liu
•It handles all the UCC-3 forms - amendments, continuations, terminations. Basically any situation where you need to make sure your new filing matches up correctly with the original UCC-1.
0 coins
Andre Dubois
Update: I used the document verification tool mentioned here and found the issue! There was an extra space character in the debtor address that I couldn't see. The continuation went through perfectly once I fixed that tiny detail. Thanks everyone for the suggestions - this could have been a disaster if the filing had lapsed.
0 coins
Mei Liu
•Awesome that the verification tool worked for you! That's exactly the kind of subtle error it's designed to catch.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Farsi
•Great outcome. Now you know to check for those hidden characters on future filings too.
0 coins