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
Pedro Sawyer
Also double-check that you're using the correct entity type designation. Virginia requires the exact designation from the Articles - so if it's 'Corporation' on the Articles but you're using 'Corp.' on the UCC-1, that'll get rejected.
Rita Jacobs
•We probably are abbreviating entity types without realizing it. Will need to go back and compare our UCC-1s character by character against the Articles.
Pedro Sawyer
•That's tedious but necessary. Or use one of those document comparison tools that does it automatically - saves a lot of manual checking time.
Mae Bennett
Been doing UCC filings in Virginia for 15 years and this has always been their biggest sticking point. The good news is once you figure out their exact naming requirements, your filings go through smoothly. Just takes some upfront effort to get the process right.
Any specific tips for making sure we get it right the first time? We're losing time and money on these rejections.
Mae Bennett
•Create a standardized process - always pull names from the same official source, use the same verification method, and consider automated checking if you do volume. Consistency is key with Virginia UCC Article 9 filings.
Join the conversation
Update us when you figure out what went wrong! I'm curious if it was a name issue or something else entirely. These kinds of problems are learning opportunities for all of us.
Will definitely post an update once we get this resolved. Hoping it's something simple we can fix with a corrected termination filing.
Yes please update! I'm dealing with a similar situation in California and wondering if it's the same type of issue.
Lily Young
Six months is way too long for this to be unresolved. The borrower's lender should be putting pressure on you to get this fixed ASAP. Have you considered hiring a UCC service company to handle the correction filing?
Lily Young
•Sometimes it's worth paying for professional help rather than letting a deal fall apart over a filing error.
Agreed. The cost of professional UCC services is nothing compared to losing a major refinancing deal.
Join the conversation
One thing to consider is whether your loan documents have any specific requirements about maintaining continuous perfection. Some agreements have clauses that could technically put the borrower in default if the UCC filing lapses, even temporarily. Review your paperwork carefully.
Even if there's a technical default, most lenders will waive it if you're taking immediate corrective action. The key is showing you're handling the situation professionally.
Document everything you're doing to fix the situation. Your loan committee will want to see that you have a clear remediation plan.
Update us on how the refiling goes! I'm sure other people reading this thread will benefit from knowing how you resolved the situation. These kinds of real-world examples are so much more helpful than theoretical discussions.
LunarEclipse
•Yes please update! I'm always worried about missing a continuation deadline and it would be great to hear how this resolves.
These real situations are the best learning experiences. Good luck with the refiling and thanks for sharing what happened.
Join the conversation
Emma Davis
The bottom line with dragnet clauses is that they don't change UCC Article 9 filing requirements. Your collateral description still needs to be sufficient to put third parties on notice. If you're unsure whether your current description covers the new collateral types, err on the side of filing an amendment.
Thanks, that's probably the safest approach. Better to over-file than to discover a perfection gap during enforcement.
GalaxyGlider
•Agree. Dragnet clauses are powerful for creating security interests but they don't solve UCC notice requirements.
Just went through dragnet clause analysis for a client and Certana.ai's verification tool was incredibly helpful. Uploaded the security agreement with dragnet language and our UCC-1 filings, and it immediately flagged potential inconsistencies. Turns out our dragnet covered deposit accounts but our UCC didn't mention them. Could have been a costly oversight.
It's pretty sophisticated - it understands that dragnet language creates broader coverage than what might be explicitly listed, and it flags where your UCC descriptions might not capture everything the security agreement covers.
That level of analysis would save so much time compared to manually comparing security agreements and UCC filings.
Brielle Johnson
I've been dealing with UCC filings for 15 years and Michigan has always been slower than most states with search updates. The fact that you have acceptance confirmations means your terminations are legally effective regardless of what the search shows. Document everything and present it to your lender with confidence.
0 coins
Brielle Johnson
•No, this is definitely a system issue not a filing issue. Your documentation should be more than sufficient for any reasonable lender.
0 coins
Honorah King
•15 years of experience and Michigan still finds ways to be frustrating. Some things never change!
0 coins
Oliver Brown
Try running the search again in a few days. Sometimes these things resolve themselves once the database catches up. In the meantime, make sure you have clean copies of all your termination documents ready for the lender.
0 coins
Philip Cowan
•Will do. Hopefully this resolves itself soon but I'll definitely have all the documentation ready either way.
0 coins
Oliver Brown
•That's the right approach. Being prepared with documentation is always better than hoping the search results are perfect.
0 coins