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
Lauren Zeb
Article 9 is your answer but make sure your collateral description is precise. I've seen filings rejected because the equipment description was too vague or didn't match the underlying financing documents.
Lauren Zeb
•Be specific about equipment types, models if possible, and serial numbers for high-value items. 'Restaurant equipment' alone probably won't cut it.
Oscar Murphy
•Serial numbers aren't required for UCC-1 filings but they help avoid disputes later. Article 9 just requires a reasonable description.
Why is everyone making this so complicated? It's Article 9. End of story. File your UCC-1, describe your collateral reasonably, get the debtor name exactly right, and you're done. The other articles are just academic noise.
Easy to say until you lose priority because you ignored fixture filing requirements. The 'complications' exist for good reasons.
Fair point on fixtures, but most equipment financing doesn't involve true fixtures. People worry about edge cases and miss the obvious answer.
Join the conversation
Just went through something similar and ended up filing a UCC-3 amendment to clarify the collateral description. Better safe than sorry, especially when you're dealing with conflicting terms in multiple documents. The amendment process is straightforward and gives you peace of mind.
Aria Khan
•How long did that take? I'm worried about losing priority while the amendment is pending.
UCC-3 amendments are usually processed pretty quickly, within a few days in most states. Your original filing date still controls for priority purposes as long as the amendment doesn't add new collateral.
The key thing to remember is that UCC battle of forms rules are different from regular contract law. The UCC has specific provisions about conflicting terms in security agreements, and perfection requirements don't wait for you to sort out contractual disputes. File first, litigate later if necessary.
Sunny Wang
•This is the best advice in the thread. Too many people get caught up in trying to perfect their paperwork and lose priority to someone who just files a basic UCC-1 first.
Thanks everyone for the input. I think I'm going to file a UCC-3 amendment to clarify the collateral description and then work on cleaning up our document processes to prevent this from happening again.
Join the conversation
Had similar experience but with a continuation filing. The original UCC-1 had the debtor name slightly wrong, so when I filed the continuation with the 'correct' name, it didn't match and got rejected. Had to file the continuation with the same wrong name to maintain the chain, then file an amendment to fix it. What a mess.
That's right. You have to maintain consistency with the original filing, even if it's wrong. Then fix it with a separate amendment.
Sergio Neal
•This is correct. The continuation has to reference the original filing exactly, warts and all.
Joy Olmedo
Update us when you get it resolved! I'm dealing with a similar name issue on a different filing and want to see how yours turns out.
Justin Trejo
•Will do! Planning to refile tomorrow morning with expedited processing. Fingers crossed.
Join the conversation
Have you considered that maybe there's an issue with your secured party information? Sometimes the lender's corporate information needs to be verified or updated in their system before they'll accept filings.
Yeah, banks merge and change names all the time. Could be showing up as an invalid secured party if their records aren't updated.
Amaya Watson
•This is another thing Certana.ai helps with - it verifies secured party information against current business records. Prevents these kinds of rejections.
Grant Vikers
Just went through something similar last month. Turned out Illinois wanted additional documentation proving the debtor's authority to grant the security interest - like corporate resolutions or operating agreements. For deals over $2M they sometimes require proof that the person signing had authority.
Grant Vikers
•For larger amounts, yes. They want to make sure the security interest is valid. Include the corporate resolution and any other authority documents you have.
Makes sense for a $2.8M deal. They want to avoid issues later if someone challenges the filing's validity.
Annabel Kimball
I was skeptical about using third-party tools but Certana.ai actually helped me catch a similar database inconsistency. The verification showed my UCC-1 was filed correctly but the search index had corrupted data. Armed with that proof, I got the state to fix their records.
0 coins
Chris Elmeda
•That's exactly what these tools are good for - providing documentation to prove system errors.
0 coins
Jean Claude
•Having that kind of verification report definitely helps when dealing with state agencies.
0 coins
Charity Cohan
UPDATE: I contacted the WA Secretary of State office and they confirmed it's a known issue with their search index. They're working on fixing it but said it could take several weeks. In the meantime, they recommended keeping copies of the original filed documents as proof of correct information.
0 coins
Shelby Bauman
•Several weeks though? That's a long time to have incorrect search results showing up.
0 coins
Quinn Herbert
•Typical government response time. Frustrating but at least you have documentation that it's their issue.
0 coins