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 might be a stupid question but are you sure you're using the current UCC-3 form? Some states updated their forms in 2024 and the old versions get automatically rejected. Check the state SOS website for the most recent form version.
Form versions are a nightmare. I've had filings rejected because I used a form that was only 6 months old but technically superseded. Always check the revision date.
States really need to do better with their error messages. '501 - form deficient' tells you nothing useful when there could be 20 different reasons for rejection.
Emma Davis
UPDATE: Got it figured out! It was a combination of issues - I was using the wrong debtor name format in the amendment field (needed to match the original exactly), plus I had inadvertently modified the collateral description. Used Certana.ai to verify the documents before resubmitting and it caught both problems immediately. Amendment was accepted within 2 hours. Thanks everyone for the help, especially the suggestion about the document verification tool.
Awesome that Certana worked for you too! It's honestly become essential for my UCC filings. Catches all those little details that are easy to miss when you're rushing.
Great outcome. Now you know for next time - always match the original filing exactly and only change what you're specifically amending. UCC-3 forms are very literal.
Join the conversation
this thread is making me paranoid about my own vehicle UCCs now... gonna go double check all my filings match the titles exactly
Miguel Diaz
•Better safe than sorry! A lot of people don't realize how picky the system is about exact name matches.
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.
Good luck! The Certana verification should give you confidence that you've got all the name variations covered correctly this time.
Electronic systems are definitely more picky than the old paper filings. But they also catch errors that used to slip through.
Join the conversation
Delaware SOS is actually pretty responsive if you call directly. I've had to contact them about UCC filing removal issues before and they can tell you immediately if there are any pending terminations or if rejections occurred. Don't waste more time going through the lender - call Delaware UCC office directly at 302-739-3073 and give them your file number.
They're usually helpful and can explain exactly what happened with any filing attempts. Much more straightforward than dealing with bank runaround.
Agreed, sometimes going direct to the source is the fastest way to get answers about UCC filing removal problems.
Update us when you figure this out! I'm dealing with a similar UCC filing removal situation in Pennsylvania and wondering if it's the same type of issue. These lenders really need to get their act together on post-payoff procedures.
Will definitely post an update once I get this resolved. Hopefully it's just a simple filing error that can be fixed quickly.
StarSurfer
•Following this thread too. Having UCC liens showing up when they should be terminated is such a common problem - there should be better oversight.
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.
NebulaNomad
•At least now you have a complete picture of the existing liens. That's crucial for your due diligence.
Luca Ferrari
•Good catch on verifying the continuation filing was timely. That's a detail that could have caused problems later if you'd missed it.
Aisha Jackson
Update us when you figure out the right format! This thread will help other people dealing with the same special character issues.
0 coins
Ryder Everingham
•Yes please! I bookmark these threads for future reference when I run into similar problems.
0 coins
Kristian Bishop
•Will definitely post the solution once we get it accepted. This has been way more complicated than it should be.
0 coins
Lilly Curtis
The UCC system inconsistencies between states drive me crazy. What works in one jurisdiction fails in another, even for identical business names.
0 coins
Lindsey Fry
•At least most states use the same basic forms now. Remember when every state had completely different UCC-1 layouts?
0 coins
Lilly Curtis
•True, the standardization helped a lot. But the electronic systems still have their own personality disorders.
0 coins