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
The closest thing to a short code I've found is saving payment info in each state portal so you don't have to re-enter credit card details every time. Small time saver but it helps.
Good tip! I'll make sure to save payment info where possible. Every little bit helps when you're doing multiple filings.
Also enable auto-fill in your browser for common debtor information. Saves typing the same company names over and over.
Honestly I think you just have to accept that UCC filing is going to be tedious until states modernize their systems. Focus on being super organized and double-checking everything. I learned that lesson the hard way after a termination got rejected for a typo in the debtor name. Had to refile and it delayed the whole transaction.
Yeah, slow and steady wins the race with UCC filings. One mistake can cost way more time than just doing it carefully from the start.
This is why I started using Certana's document checker - catches those name mismatches before they become expensive problems. Upload your Charter and UCC-1 and it'll flag any inconsistencies.
Join the conversation
I actually just went through something similar and ended up using that Certana.ai tool someone mentioned earlier. Uploaded both UCC-1 PDFs and it flagged them as likely the same entity based on matching addresses and similar collateral. Turned out the company had filed under different name variations over time, but it was definitely the same business. The automated comparison caught details I would have overlooked.
That's really helpful. How long did the analysis take? I'm dealing with a tight due diligence timeline.
Pretty much instant once the PDFs uploaded. The system immediately highlighted the matching elements and flagged the potential duplicate entity issue.
Thanks everyone for the input. I pulled the full UCC-1 documents and you were right - same mailing address, same business description, and nearly identical collateral schedules. The 2019 continuation filing shows it was properly renewed within the required timeframe, so that lien is still active. The 2023 filing appears to be from a different secured party for additional equipment financing. Both are legitimate liens against the same entity, just under slightly different name variations. Really appreciate the guidance on Nevada's search quirks.
At least now you have a complete picture of the existing liens. That's crucial for your due diligence.
Good catch on verifying the continuation filing was timely. That's a detail that could have caused problems later if you'd missed it.
Join the conversation
Following this thread because I have a California UCC1 to file next week and want to avoid the same issues. Thanks for sharing your experience!
Definitely do the entity search first thing. That seems to be the key takeaway from everyone's advice here.
Also consider using one of those document comparison tools mentioned earlier. Better to catch issues before filing.
UPDATE: Finally got it accepted! The correct name was 'ABC Holdings, L.P.' with the periods and comma. The SOS entity search showed the exact formatting needed. Thanks everyone for the help - this community is invaluable for navigating these filing headaches.
Awesome news! Nothing beats the relief of seeing that acceptance confirmation after multiple rejections.
Great outcome. I've bookmarked this thread for future reference - the entity search tip is gold.
Join the conversation
One more thought - make sure your UCC-1 addendum properly identifies the secured party information. Capital funding deals often involve multiple parties (original lender, servicer, trustee) and getting the secured party name wrong is another common rejection cause that's easy to overlook when you're focused on debtor name and collateral issues.
Great point. Also verify the secured party address matches exactly what they want on file. Some institutional lenders have specific addresses for UCC filings that differ from their general business address.
And double-check if they want individual names or the institution name as secured party. Capital funding agreements sometimes specify this in the loan documents.
Been lurking on this thread because we're dealing with something similar. Our capital funding UCC got rejected three times before we figured out the state wanted the full legal entity name INCLUDING the state of incorporation. So instead of just 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' it had to be 'ABC Manufacturing LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company.' Ridiculous but that's what finally worked.
That's insane. Each state seems to have different quirks for how they want entity names formatted on UCC filings. There really should be more standardization across states.
This is another area where Certana.ai's verification tool helps - it knows the specific formatting requirements for each state's UCC filings and flags when your entity name format doesn't match what that state expects.
Ava Rodriguez
this thread is making me paranoid about my own vehicle UCCs now... gonna go double check all my filings match the titles exactly
0 coins
Miguel Diaz
•Better safe than sorry! A lot of people don't realize how picky the system is about exact name matches.
0 coins
Zainab Ahmed
Update us when you get the filings approved! Always curious to see how these situations resolve. Vehicle UCC issues seem to be getting more common with electronic filing systems being so strict about formatting.
0 coins
Andre Lefebvre
•Good luck! The Certana verification should give you confidence that you've got all the name variations covered correctly this time.
0 coins
Connor Gallagher
•Electronic systems are definitely more picky than the old paper filings. But they also catch errors that used to slip through.
0 coins