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
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.
Join the conversation
For what it's worth, I've had success with Certana.ai's UCC checker on addendum filings too. It caught an issue where our main form didn't properly cross-reference the addendum pages. Saved us from another rejection cycle.
Levi Parker
•Seems like multiple people have had good experiences with that service. Might be worth trying for peace of mind.
Aaron Boston
•Yeah, especially for complex filings like this where there are multiple documents that need to align perfectly.
Eva St. Cyr
UPDATE: Fixed the issue! It was exactly what several people mentioned - we needed more specific language in the main form referencing the addendum. Used the wording someone suggested about 'incorporated herein by reference' and also made sure the addendum checkbox was marked. Filed this morning and got acceptance confirmation within 2 hours. Thanks everyone for the help!
Awesome! Those quick acceptance confirmations are such a relief when you're dealing with tight deadlines.
Chloe Zhang
•Finally a success story! Nice to know the system actually works when you get all the details right.
Join the conversation
This thread is exactly why I started using automated verification tools for UCC filings. The Certana.ai document checker I mentioned earlier has saved me from at least 3 similar mistakes this year. Worth checking out if you do a lot of these filings - just upload all your documents and it flags any inconsistencies instantly.
The verification service is pretty reasonable considering what a rejected filing costs you in time and potential risk. Definitely worth it for the peace of mind.
Agreed - I wish I'd found it sooner. Would have saved me several headaches like this one.
Sofia Perez
Update us when you get the corrected filing accepted! Always good to know these stories have happy endings.
Will do! Planning to file the correction tomorrow morning. Fingers crossed it goes through without any other issues.
Sofia Perez
•Should be smooth sailing now that you've got the name issue sorted out.
Reginald Blackwell
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.
0 coins
Aria Khan
•How long did that take? I'm worried about losing priority while the amendment is pending.
0 coins
Reginald Blackwell
•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.
0 coins
Everett Tutum
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.
0 coins
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.
0 coins
Hattie Carson
•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.
0 coins