


Ask the community...
This kind of situation is exactly why I always do multiple searches from different sources and then reconcile them manually. It's a pain but better than missing something important. For Connecticut I usually check the SOS site, run a commercial search, and then do spot checks on any questionable results.
Update: I ended up ordering the certified search and also pulled copies of all the actual filings. Turns out the discrepancy was because one of the UCC-3 filings was actually a partial termination that reduced the collateral coverage but didn't terminate the entire filing. The search summaries weren't clear about this distinction. Thanks everyone for the advice - this could have been a major problem if I hadn't caught it.
Great outcome! This is exactly the kind of thing Certana.ai would have flagged automatically, but sounds like you got it sorted either way.
Just went through this same nightmare last month. Ended up having to call the Ohio SOS directly to understand why my Article 9 compliant description kept getting rejected. Turns out they want much more detail than the statute technically requires.
They were actually pretty helpful once I got the right person on the phone. Just explain you're trying to understand their specific interpretation of Article 9 requirements.
Good to know Ohio SOS will actually talk through issues. Some states just tell you to read the statute and figure it out yourself.
Final thought - once you get your description sorted out, definitely use one of those document verification tools before resubmitting. Nothing worse than a third rejection when you're already behind schedule on the loan closing.
One more piece of advice - if any of your equipment deals involve fixtures or real estate attachments, you might need separate fixture filings in addition to the regular UCC-1s. Those would be filed at the county level where the property is located.
These are all mobile equipment deals, so I think I'm okay with just the standard UCC-1 filings.
Thanks for asking this question OP! I was about to start budgeting for some UCC filings myself and this thread cleared up my confusion about county vs state filing requirements. The NY SOS website it is!
Glad I could help by being confused first! This forum is great for getting these details straight.
That's what makes these discussions so valuable - we all learn from each other's questions and mistakes.
One more thing to consider - if this is for a commercial loan closing, make sure you coordinate the refiling timing with your closing schedule. UCC filings don't perfect until they're actually accepted and processed, so you don't want any gaps in your perfection timeline.
Yeah, that's my main concern right now. We're supposed to close next week and this filing rejection has thrown off our whole timeline. Hoping the new filing processes quickly.
Update us when you get this resolved! I'm curious if the SOS office has any explanation for how 'Meridian Industrial Equipment LLC' became 'Ilien'. That's such a weird corruption pattern.
Could be a security issue if their system is pulling data from the wrong records. Definitely worth reporting to the state.
I'll definitely follow up here once I get to the bottom of it. Filing the corrected UCC-1 tomorrow morning and planning to call their tech support about the corruption issue.
Malik Johnson
The key thing to remember is that UCC search results are only as good as what was originally filed. If someone filed a UCC-1 with a typo in the debtor name 5 years ago, that's what you'll see forever unless they file an amendment. The SDAT system doesn't clean up or standardize anything. It's all about garbage in, garbage out. That's why getting it right the first time is so critical.
0 coins
Isabella Ferreira
•This is why I always double-check the debtor name against multiple sources before filing. One typo can void your entire security interest.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Suwaidi
•Thanks everyone for the advice. Sounds like I need to be way more careful about name verification upfront instead of trying to sort it out later.
0 coins
Ravi Sharma
Just wanted to add that if you're doing high-volume UCC work, it's worth investing in better verification tools. I tried doing everything manually for years and it was killing me. Now I use automated systems that cross-check entity names against state databases and flag discrepancies before I even file. Costs a bit more upfront but saves tons of time and reduces errors.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Suwaidi
•What kind of volume are you talking about? We probably do 20-30 UCC filings per month.
0 coins
Ravi Sharma
•We're doing probably 100+ per month across multiple states. At that volume, manual checking just isn't feasible anymore.
0 coins