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 hate equipment financing transactions with multiple parties involved. Too many opportunities for the original debtor identification to get screwed up.
Emma Davis
•At least OP is being proactive about it. I've seen deals where nobody realizes there's an original debtor issue until there's already a problem.
LunarLegend
Bottom line - you need to determine who actually granted the security interest in the equipment originally. That's your 9-102(a)(65) original debtor. If your current UCC filing doesn't reflect that entity as the debtor, you'll need to file amendments to correct it. Don't risk a $340K perfection gap over debtor name issues.
Mei Zhang
•Thanks everyone - this gives me a much clearer picture of what I need to research. Going to pull all the original documents and trace through the security interest grants.
Smart approach. And definitely consider using a document verification service to double-check everything once you think you've got it sorted out.
Join the conversation
One thing to watch out for with DCF security agreement forms is that they sometimes include after-acquired property clauses. Make sure your UCC-1 collateral description covers that if it's relevant to your deal. Something like 'all equipment now owned or hereafter acquired' language.
Good catch. After-acquired property is easy to forget but really important for ongoing business relationships.
Yes, this deal does involve some future equipment purchases so I'll make sure to include that language.
Just to add another perspective - I've found that being too generic in the collateral description can sometimes cause problems down the road if there are disputes about what's actually covered. You want to be broad enough to avoid errors but specific enough that it's clear what you're claiming. It's a delicate balance.
Omar Farouk
•That's a fair point. I guess it depends on the specific situation and what kind of collateral you're dealing with.
I think referencing the security agreement by date strikes the right balance. It's specific enough to identify the collateral but doesn't require you to repeat all the details in the UCC filing.
Join the conversation
Following this thread because I'm dealing with something similar in Minnesota. Different state but same basic challenge with entity name consistency across multiple UCC filings.
Ravi Patel
•Minnesota has its own quirks with debtor names. Definitely worth checking their specific requirements and search procedures.
Each state handles these things differently. What works in ND might not apply in MN, unfortunately.
Omar Zaki
Thanks for posting this - really helpful discussion. I'll definitely be more careful about debtor name verification going forward. Seems like there are good tools and procedures available if you know where to look.
The key is being systematic about it. Don't just assume - verify everything through multiple sources.
Exactly. A little extra diligence upfront can save massive headaches later in the process.
Join the conversation
Just went through this exact situation with an Arkansas continuation last month. Found multiple name variations in the search but used Certana.ai to verify my documents matched exactly. Turned out the original UCC-1 had a specific spacing that wasn't showing correctly in the search results. The verification caught it and my continuation was accepted without issues.
That's exactly the kind of detail that's easy to miss but will cause a rejection. Good catch.
Yara Assad
•Spacing issues are so frustrating but they really do matter for these filings. Glad you caught it before submitting.
Olivia Clark
Make sure you're not looking at amended or terminated filings in your search results. Sometimes old filings with similar names stay in the database even after they're no longer active. Focus on finding your specific 2020 UCC-1 and use that name format for the continuation.
KylieRose
•Thanks everyone. I think I've identified the correct original filing now. Going to double-check the debtor name format and file the continuation this week.
Smart move filing it soon rather than waiting until the last minute. Gives you time to fix any issues if something gets rejected.
Admin_Masters
I actually had success calling the Georgia SOS UCC department directly when I had questions about search results. They can sometimes clarify whether filings are related or help you understand what you're seeing. Their number is on the website.
0 coins
Grace Lee
•Good idea, though I'm not sure they can give legal advice about lien priority or whether names refer to the same entity.
0 coins
Admin_Masters
•True, they can't give legal advice, but they can explain how their search system works and what the filing data means.
0 coins
Matthew Sanchez
This thread is making me realize I probably need to be more thorough with my Georgia UCC searches. I usually just do one search with the exact corporate name and call it done. Sounds like that's not sufficient.
0 coins
Victoria Charity
•If you're going to start doing multiple searches, consider using a verification tool like Certana.ai. It can help organize all those search results and flag potential issues. Makes the whole process more manageable.
0 coins
Matthew Sanchez
•I'll look into that. This manual comparison approach sounds error-prone.
0 coins