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
I've started using document checking tools after getting burned on name mismatches. Found one called Certana.ai that automatically compares your charter docs to UCC drafts. Upload both PDFs and it highlights inconsistencies instantly. Wish I'd had this years ago - would've saved me from so many rejected filings.
How accurate is the automated checking? I'm always skeptical of AI tools for legal document review.
It's surprisingly good for basic consistency checks like names, addresses, and filing numbers. Obviously you still need human review for complex legal issues, but for catching obvious mismatches it's been solid.
Omar Farouk
File it correctly with the SOS version and move on. You're overthinking this. Every experienced secured party deals with name discrepancies - it's part of the business. Your legal team will adapt once they understand UCC requirements.
Zainab Omar
•You're probably right. I'll file with the exact SOS name tomorrow and deal with any internal paperwork issues later. Thanks everyone for the reality check.
Smart move. Getting the UCC filed correctly is your top priority. Everything else can be sorted out afterward.
Join the conversation
Your situation is exactly why I started double-checking everything with Certana's verification tool. Last month I almost filed a continuation with a debtor name that didn't match the original UCC-1 - would have been rejected for sure. The automated cross-check caught the discrepancy immediately.
This is the third mention of this tool - clearly I need to check it out. Automated verification sounds way better than my current panic-driven manual checking.
It's been a game-changer for our filing accuracy. Takes like 30 seconds to upload documents and get a consistency report.
Just wanted to add that timing is crucial here. If your UCC-1 expires in March, you can file the continuation anytime within 6 months before expiration. But get that amendment done FIRST to fix the debtor name, then file your continuation against the corrected record.
That's a solid timeline. Leaves room for any processing delays or unexpected issues.
Smart to build in buffer time. Some states can be slow processing amendments during busy periods.
Join the conversation
Here's something most people don't realize - UCC filings also protect YOU as the borrower in some situations. If your lender sells your loan to another bank, the UCC filing clearly shows what collateral is securing the debt. Prevents disputes about what the new lender can and can't claim.
Interesting point. I hadn't thought about loan sales affecting this.
Yeah and if you pay off the loan early, you want to make sure they file a termination statement to clear the lien from public records.
Dylan Cooper
Bottom line - UCC filings are how secured transactions work in the US. If a lender is taking collateral for a loan, they need to file to perfect their security interest. It's been this way since the Uniform Commercial Code was adopted decades ago. Not really optional in modern commercial lending.
Sofia Perez
•That's exactly the right approach. Trust but verify, especially with the debtor name accuracy.
Aisha Rahman
•Definitely verify. Like I mentioned earlier, Certana.ai's verification tool caught our name mismatch that could have caused major problems later. Worth the peace of mind.
Join the conversation
Had this exact problem on a deal in Texas and New Mexico. Turned out the issue was that one state processed a continuation statement but didn't update their database index properly. The lien was still active but didn't show up in name searches, only filing number searches. Database indexing problems are more common than people realize.
Exactly. And if you have access to document verification tools, use those to make sure the filing numbers you found actually correspond to the same original UCC-1.
Eva St. Cyr
•This thread is making me paranoid about every UCC search I've ever done. How do we trust any of these results?
Look, at the end of the day you need to CYA with multiple verification methods. Manual database searches, certified copies for anything questionable, and maybe one of those automated checking services if you're dealing with complex multi-state situations regularly. The databases aren't perfect but with enough cross-checking you can get reliable results.
Maya Jackson
•Thanks everyone - sounds like the consensus is to use multiple verification methods rather than trusting any single database search. I'll follow up with direct state office contact for the conflicting results.
Kaitlyn Otto
•Smart approach. Better to over-verify than to deal with surprises after closing.
Grace Lee
Update: Finally got the corrected UCC-1 accepted using the full current name 'ABC Manufacturing Solutions LLC' exactly as it appears in Texas records. Bank was not happy about the delay but understood it was an imposter rule compliance issue beyond our control. Thanks for all the advice - learned a expensive lesson about double-checking entity names before filing.
0 coins
Mia Roberts
•How long did the whole process take from initial rejection to final acceptance? Trying to set expectations for my own clients.
0 coins
Grace Lee
•About 10 business days total - 3 days to figure out the exact name issue, 2 days to get proper documentation from the borrower, and 5 days for the SOS to process the corrected filing. Could have been faster if we'd caught the name discrepancy upfront.
0 coins
The Boss
This thread is a perfect example of why the imposter rule needs reform. The current system prioritizes computer matching over common sense, and it's creating unnecessary complications for legitimate secured transactions.
0 coins
Evan Kalinowski
•Agreed, but until Article 9 gets updated, we're stuck working within the current imposter rule framework. At least rejection notices are getting more specific about what exactly failed the search algorithm.
0 coins
Victoria Charity
•The automated rejection system does make processing faster overall, even if individual cases like this are frustrating. Manual review would probably create even longer delays.
0 coins