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
Aidan Hudson
This is frustrating but fixable. The key is making sure your security agreement language specifically authorizes the UCC filing you want to make. A lot of older security agreement forms don't have explicit UCC authorization clauses.
Good point about older forms. Ours might be from before the revised Article 9. Probably time to update our templates.
Aidan Hudson
•Definitely. The 2001 revisions made authorization requirements more explicit. Worth having your forms reviewed by someone who knows the current rules.
Zoe Wang
UPDATE: We figured out the issue! Our security agreements had authorization for UCC filings but only for the 'collateral described herein.' When we filed UCCs with broader descriptions, we exceeded the scope of authorization. We're revising our security agreement template to authorize broader UCC collateral descriptions.
Exactly what happened to us. Now we use Certana.ai to double-check that our security agreements and UCC-1s are consistent before every filing. Prevents these authorization mismatches.
Thanks everyone for the help. Going to implement some document checking process to avoid this in the future. The Certana.ai suggestion sounds like it could save us from more headaches.
Join the conversation
Similar thing happened to me but with LLC vs L.L.C. punctuation. Turned out the state had changed how they format business names in their system but hadn't updated their search function. Sometimes you have to call the filing office directly to figure out their exact formatting requirements.
Carmen Ruiz
•Good point about calling the office. The staff there usually know about any recent system changes or formatting quirks.
I might do that just to be 100% sure before I refile. Can't afford another rejection at this point.
Yara Khoury
Update us when you get it sorted! These vehicle security agreement issues come up all the time and it's helpful to know how different states handle the refiling situation. Hope the timing works out okay for your deal.
Will do! Planning to refile tomorrow morning with the exact charter name. Fingers crossed this one goes through.
Good luck! These name matching issues are such a pain but at least it's fixable.
Join the conversation
Mateo Perez
Have you considered the problem might be with your search strategy rather than the service? Sometimes being too narrow with search terms causes you to miss legitimate variations.
Emma Wilson
•Possibly, but when I broaden the search terms I get hundreds of irrelevant results to sift through.
Mateo Perez
•True, it's a balancing act. Wide enough to catch variations but narrow enough to be manageable.
Aisha Rahman
The bottom line is UCC searches are just one piece of due diligence. You still need good document review processes to catch what the searches miss. No search service is going to be 100% perfect.
That's why automated verification tools are becoming more important. Technology needs to fill the gap between comprehensive searches and manual review.
Aisha Rahman
•Exactly. The future is probably AI-powered document analysis that can spot the inconsistencies humans miss.
Join the conversation
Diego Vargas
just had same problem with ma filing last week. turned out the llc had an old dba on file that was confusing the system. check if harbor view has any old assumed names or dbas that might be interfering
Diego Vargas
•yeah ma keeps all that stuff in their database even if its expired. really annoying
Massachusetts really needs to update their systems. This kind of stuff shouldn't be so complicated in 2025.
Final thought - if all else fails and you're really pressed for time, some attorneys will file these as a service and they usually have workarounds for the common portal issues. Costs more but might be worth it for a $180K equipment financing deal.
NebulaNova
•Yeah, might have to go that route if I can't figure this out by tomorrow. Really frustrating though - should be a simple filing.
I agree it should be simpler, but unfortunately Massachusetts hasn't modernized their UCC system as much as other states. The manual verification process they use creates a lot of these edge cases.
Adaline Wong
Just went through this exact situation with a California termination. My solution was to use a document verification service that compared my UCC-3 termination against the original UCC-1 filing. Found three small differences I never would have caught manually - a period after 'LLC', different spacing, and the state abbreviation format. Fixed those and the termination was accepted immediately.
0 coins
Adaline Wong
•Used Certana.ai - you just upload both documents and it shows you a side-by-side comparison with differences highlighted. Really straightforward and caught issues I would have missed.
0 coins
Gabriel Ruiz
•I can vouch for document verification tools. They're lifesavers for UCC work where every detail has to be perfect.
0 coins
Misterclamation Skyblue
Don't give up! California terminations can be tricky but once you get the details right, it should go through. The key is matching everything exactly from the original UCC-1. Good luck!
0 coins
Norman Fraser
•Thanks for the encouragement! I'm going to try the document verification approach and see if that catches what I'm missing.
0 coins
Peyton Clarke
•Keep us posted on how it goes. These threads help other people dealing with the same California UCC termination issues.
0 coins