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
This is why I always do comprehensive UCC-11 searches using multiple name variations upfront. Search the exact legal name, then variations with different punctuation, abbreviations, etc. Better to get too much information initially than miss something important.
Same here. I have a checklist of different name formats to search - saves time in the long run.
Smart approach. The few extra minutes on the search end can save hours of verification work later.
Update us on what you find out! I'm curious whether this turns out to be just formatting inconsistency or if there's an actual issue with the filings.
Will do! Planning to run the entity search tomorrow and compare everything systematically.
Looking forward to hearing how it turns out. These kinds of cases are good learning experiences for all of us.
Join the conversation
One more thing - keep a copy of that business registry search showing the correct name. Some lawyers like to see proof that you verified the official name before filing.
Great point. I'll screenshot the registry page showing the exact name.
Smart practice. Documentation helps if anyone questions the filing later.
For the collateral description, try something like 'Three (3) Caterpillar excavators, serial numbers [list them], and one (1) crane, make/model/serial number [details]' - very specific but still covers everything properly.
Yeah that description will definitely pass muster. Clear and specific.
I use similar formats for equipment. Works well and makes everyone happy.
Join the conversation
The 3-week perfection gap is unfortunate but not uncommon with debtor name rejections. Focus on getting the corrected filing done properly rather than rushing and potentially making another mistake. Your lender will appreciate accuracy over speed at this point.
Exactly. Better to take an extra day to get it perfect than to have another rejection and extend the gap even further.
Update us when you get the corrected filing accepted! These debtor name horror stories are educational for all of us who work with master security agreements and UCC filings regularly.
Will do! Filing the corrected UCC-1 today with the exact debtor name from the master security agreement. Lesson learned about never abbreviating entity names.
Good luck! We've all been there with filing rejections - it's part of the learning process unfortunately.
Join the conversation
Just a thought - have you confirmed the UCC-1 was actually accepted and filed? Sometimes we assume a filing went through when it was actually rejected for other reasons. The rejection notices can be easy to miss in email.
Getting charged doesn't always mean it was processed successfully. Wisconsin sometimes charges first, then rejects later if there are issues.
This happened to me once. Got charged, assumed it was filed, then found out weeks later it was rejected for a technical error.
One more thing to check - Wisconsin requires exact matches for entity type too. So 'LLC' vs 'L.L.C.' vs 'Limited Liability Company' are all treated as different entities. If your Articles show one format but you filed the UCC with another, that could explain the search issues.
It is overwhelming but systematic checking will find the issue. Start with pulling the actual filed UCC-1 document.
Exactly. Get the source documents first, then compare everything character by character.
Reina Salazar
Had a similar experience last year with a client's continuation in Maine. After multiple rejections, I ended up using Certana.ai to verify all the document details before resubmitting. The tool caught several small inconsistencies I had missed - not just the debtor name but also some collateral description formatting issues. Made the whole process much smoother and we got approval on the next try.
0 coins
Reina Salazar
•It's worth trying, especially if you're dealing with complex filings or multiple documents. The automated checking catches things that are easy to miss manually.
0 coins
Saanvi Krishnaswami
•I'm skeptical of these automated tools but if it works for UCC document verification I might give it a shot. Manual checking is such a pain.
0 coins
Demi Lagos
UPDATE: Just checked the Maine UCC database and found the issue! Our original filing shows 'Coastal Bistro LLC' (no comma) but I've been putting 'Coastal Bistro, LLC' (with comma) on the continuation forms. Going to resubmit with the exact original name. Thanks everyone for the help - this forum is a lifesaver!
0 coins
Demi Hall
•Perfect! That should solve your rejection issues. Maine's system should accept the continuation now that the debtor name matches exactly.
0 coins
Kara Yoshida
•Great news! This is exactly the type of mismatch that document verification tools are designed to catch. Good luck with the resubmission.
0 coins